(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Children's Library | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Additional Collections
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload
See other formats

Full text of "Federal motor vehicle safety standards and regulations, with amendments and interpretations"

TIP 

.^^ ■ -V_ : 


i^ii 





















*.:. 






r, -'P? 



■7\ ^' 




BOSTON 
PUBLIC 
LlBl^RY 




PREAMBLE TO AN AMENDMENT TO 
FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 106 

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; 
Brake Hoses 

[Docket No. 8209; Notice 2] 



ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The purpose of this notice is to amend 
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 
No. 106, Brake Hoses, by allowing the use of brake 
hoses that are labeled in metric sizes. The agency 
received a petition for rulemaking from Saab- 
Scania to amend Standard No. 106 to allow the use 
of millimeter sizes in the labeling of air brake hose. 
The agency issued a notice of proposed rulemaking 
which proposed to allow manufacturers to label 
their brake hoses with metric units, and provided 
performance requirements in the standard for 
metric-sized brake hoses which were equivalent to 
the present requirements for English-sized hoses. 
This final rule primarily addresses Saab-Scania's 
petition to allow the use of brake hoses manufac- 
tured in metric sizes and is thus more limited than 
the proposal. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 3, 1985. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Federal 
Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 106, 
Brake Hoses, sets performance and labeling re- 
quirements for brake hoses used in motor vehicles. 
Sections 7.2.1(d) and 7.2.2(d) of FMVSS No. 106 re- 
quire that air brake hoses and end fittings be 
labeled for size in inches or fractions of inches. The 
standard currently permits information such as 
metric labeling to be placed on hoses as additional 
information. 

In June 1981, the agency received a petition for 
rulemaking from Saab-Scania to amend sections 
7.2.1(d) and 7.2.2(d) to permit labeling in metric 
units as an alternative to inches. On April 12, 1982, 
the agency published a notice in the Federal 



Register (47 FR 15612) granting the petition and 
proposing that various sections of the standard be 
amended to permit labeling in metric units. 

The notice explained that permitting use of 
metric sizes is consistent with Federal policy con- 
cerning metric conversion and that the proposed 
amendments would aid international harmoniza- 
tion. As the agency has explained in other notices, 
international harmonization can result in de- 
creased costs, benefiting both consumers and 
manufacturers, without an adverse effect on 
safety. In issuing the notice, the agency empha- 
sized that the proposed amendments would not 
make any change in performance criteria ap- 
plicable to a particular size of hose. The notice in- 
cluded performance requirements for the new 
metric sizes of brake hose which were the same as 
the requirements for brake hoses of comparable 
English sizes. 

Although the language of this amendment uses 
the terms "hoses" and "tubing," it is emphasized 
that "brake hose" comprises both terms. Standard 
No. 106 defines "brake hose" as a flexible conduit, 
other than a vacuum tubing connector, manufac- 
tured for use in a brake system to transmit or con- 
tain the fluid pressure or vacuum used to apply 
force to a vehicle's brakes. As explained in past 
Federal Register preambles, the term "brake 
hose" includes traditional rubber hose and plastic 
tubing. All brake hoses are subject to the standard 
and to appropriate tests for the environment in 
which they serve. 

The agency received a number of comments on 
the proposal, all of which have been carefully con- 
sidered. Most commenters supported the concept 
of permitting labeling in metric units. Some com- 
menters suggested various ways to rewrite parts 



PART571;S106-PRE41 



of the standard for purposes of clarity or to ad- 
dress safety concerns not directly related to the 
proposal. The agency may consider these sugges- 
tions, as well as other issues, as part of its efforts 
to modernize Standard No. 106 to address current 
technological developments in the industry. How- 
ever, in order to resolve the specific concerns 
raised by the Saab-Scania petition, the agency has 
decided to limit its actions at this time to adopting 
a final rule which directly addresses Saab's petition. 
This final rule permits the use of brake hoses 
and end fittings that are labeled in metric units. In 
response to concerns raised in the comments that 
it might be unclear whether a hose or fitting is 
inch-sized or metric-sized if the unit of measure- 
ment is not included in the label, the final rule re- 
quires that metric labeling include the abbrevia- 
tion "mm" to designate that the labeled units are 
metric. Finally, the final rule does not adopt the 
proposed Table Ill(a). 

Conversion 

Most commenters to the notice of proposed rule- 
making (NPRM) supported the concept of permit- 
ting labeling of brake hoses and end fittings in 
metric units. A number of commenters, however, 
expressed concerns about specific aspects of the 
proposal. 

Several commenters specifically addressed the 
issue of conversions from metric to English units 
or English to metric units. General Motors (GM) 
stated that while the preamble of the NPRM in- 
dicated that metric units of any size would be 
allowed, the actual text proposed for the amended 
standard used only integer units. GM stated that 
this approach appeared to discourage soft conver- 
sions. (A soft conversion is an exact conversion, 
which tends to result in noninteger units, e.g., 1/2 
inch = 12.7 mm. By contrast, a hard conversion in- 
volves rounding off to an integer, e.g., 1/2 inch = 
13 mm.) GM stated that soft conversions may be 
the best interim approach to export products and 
to increase understanding of metrics in this coun- 
try. GM suggested that the easiest way to specify 
the size-related requirements of the standard, 
without discouraging soft conversions, would be to 
establish requirements for a continuum of metric 
sizes. Eaton commented that the proposed amend- 
ment should specify that a manufacturer wishing 
to label a 1/2-inch-outside-diameter (O.D.) tube 
metrically should label this hose "12.7 mm (1/2 in) 
O.D." and not "12 mm O.D." Ford interpreted the 



notice as allowing manufacturers the option of 
labeling brake hoses in either metric or English 
unit sizes. 

Several commenters emphasized that only soft 
conversions should be permitted, unless and until 
industry agrees on hard metric numbers. The Rub- 
ber Manufacturers Association (RMA) stated that 
a 1/4 inch-hose should be marked either 1/4 inch or 
6.4 millimeters until such time as a hose in hard 
metric dimensions is produced. Stratoflex stated 
that United States manufacturers have made 
great progress in encouraging the international in- 
dustrial community to standardize on inch-size 
hoses and that it should not be assumed that there 
is any need for the domestic industry to develop a 
line of hoses with whole metric dimensions. 

Other commenters also addressed issues related 
to conversions. Several commenters emphasized 
that inch-size fittings must not be used with metric- 
size hose, since a mismatch could reduce perfor- 
mance and result in accidents. Goodyear objected 
to hard conversions of hose sizes because this 
would encourage the use of English-sized fittings 
with metric-sized hoses (and vice versa) which 
could lead to coupling-compatibility problems. 

In response to the comments on conversions, the 
agency reiterates that NHTSA did not intend to 
encourage conversions of either inch-size or metric- 
size hose or fittings. The agency primarily contem- 
plated that hoses that were manufactured in inch- 
size units would be labeled in inches, and hoses that 
were manufactured in integer metric units would 
be labeled in metric units. The agency intended to 
allow the use of metric-sized brake hoses in the 
American market, using the appropriate metric 
size labeling to denote the "as manufactured" size. 

It should be noted, however, that with the ex- 
ception of air brake hose intended for use with 
reusable end fittings. Standard No. 106 does not 
currently limit the sizes or specify the dimensional 
tolerances of brake hose. While the standard does 
specify some requirements and test conditions in 
terms of specific sizes, the standard does not pro- 
hibit sizes other than those listed, except for air 
brake hose intended for use with reusable end fit- 
tings. Apart from the above exception, manufac- 
turers are not limited to the hose sizes listed in the 
standard. They may produce sizes of brake hose 
other than those listed. The test values for such 
sizes would be provided by reference to the 
nearest appropriate size that is listed in the 
standard. 



PART 571; S106-PRE 42 



Industry has voluntarily standardized the sizes 
and dimensional tolerances of inch size brake hose 
and fittings, primarily through the auspices of the 
Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE). It is 
critical that a hose or fitting marked with an inch 
size correspond dimensionally to accepted in- 
dustry practice. A conversion of a metric-size hose 
to an inch size that resulted in labeling outside the 
scope of accepted industry dimensional practice, 
such as by hard conversions (i.e., rounding off) 
might well constitute a safety defect, since a 
mismatch could result in serious accidents due to 
brake hose assembly failure. It is particularly im- 
portant in the case of air brake tubing and fittings, 
since these are often assembled in repair shops 
rather than in factories where there usually exists 
more control over the matching of hoses and 
fittings. 

Since Standard No. 106 does not limit the sizes 
of most types of brake hose, manufacturers are not 
currently prohibited from using standard metric- 
sized hose if they label the hose sizes in inches. It 
should be emphasized, however, that in proposing 
the amendment, the agency did not intend to en- 
courage conversions of any sort. 

The same analysis discussed above applies to 
converting inch sizes to metric sizes. The agency 
did not intend to encourage these types of conver- 
sions when the amendment was proposed. How- 
ever, if manufacturers choose to make conversions 
of inch sizes into metric sizes, the conversions 
should be within the scope of accepted dimensional 
practice of the international industry. 

Mismatch Problems 

Stratoflex expressed concern that the existence 
in the same marketplace of both inch- and metric- 
size hose and fittings could result in mismatch 
problems. That comment was specifically directed 
toward air brake tubing. Stratoflex's concern ad- 
dressed the definition in Standard No. 106 of "per- 
manently attached end fitting," which includes 
hose fittings which use sacrificial sleeves. 
Stratoflex stated that air brake tubing assemblies 
are often assembled in repair shops by mechanics 
who insert a fitting into a nylon tube and use an or- 
dinary wrench to deform a sacrificial sleeve about 
the outside diameter of the tube to make the con- 
nection. Stratoflex stated that mechanics cannot 
be expected to know the difference between inch 
and metric fittings when neither fitting is marked 
for "size and type control." That commenter stated 



that the agency should either require inch-size air 
brake tubing only, set a date to require metric- 
size air brake tubing only, or establish additional 
marking rules for tubing and tube fittings and 
dimensional control for both inch- and metric-size 
tubing. 

Stratoflex is correct that the standard's defini- 
tion of "permanently attached end fitting" includes 
end fittings that are attached by use of a sacrificial 
sleeve. It is this type of fitting that is typically 
used for air brake tubing. That commenter is incor- 
rect, however, in stating that these fittings need 
not be marked for size. Section S7.2.2 of Standard 
No. 106 requires that end fittings must be labeled 
as to size except for end fittings attached by defor- 
mation of the fitting about a hose by crimping or 
swaging. Crimping or swaging is a process that is 
done by the manufacturer of the hose during the 
assembly of a hose. It does not include using a 
wrench to deform a sacrificial sleeve around 
tubing. This latter type of fitting (i.e., utilizing a 
sacrificial sleeve) would be required to be marked 
as to size. 

Stratoflex stated that the agency should estab- 
lish additional marking rules for dimensional con- 
trol for both inch and metric tubing as currently 
required by Table III of the standard. Table III 
specifies precise dimensions for two nearly iden- 
tical reusable air brake hoses and fittings. They 
are required to be specifically marked as Type AI 
or All, in order to differentiate between these air 
brake assembly components in the field. While 
type control is relevant for reusable air brake 
hose, the agency is not aware of the existence of 
different types or sizes of air brake tubing that 
would necessitate special marking requirements. 

It appears that Stratoflex may be referring to 
the question of whether a hose is inch or metric 
size. While the April 1982 NPRM proposed permit- 
ting labeling in either metric units or inches, the 
proposed language said that the hose could be 
labeled metrically but it did not specifically re- 
quire that the unit of measurement be identified. 
In any event, the agency believes that Stratoflex's 
concerns about labeling are reasonable, and the 
final rule accordingly requires that metric labeling 
include the abbreviation "mm" to designate that 
the labeled units are metric. 

The agency does not agree that this amendment 
permitting the use of metric-sized brake hoses will 
result in mismatch problems. Section 7.2.2 of Stan- 
dard No. 106 currently requires at least one 



PART 571; S106-PRE 43 



component of each air brake hose end fitting (ex- 
cept for end fittings that are attached by crimping 
or swaging) to be labeled with information which 
includes the nominal inside diameter of the hose to 
which the fitting is properly attached, or the out- 
side diameter of the plastic tubing to which the fit- 
ting is properly attached. Section 9.1.2 requires at 
least one component of each vacuum brake hose 
fitting (except for end fittings that are attached by 
heat shrinking, interference fit with plastic 
vacuum hose, or crimping and swaging) to be 
labeled in a similar manner. These labeling re- 
quirements are not specified for hydraulic brake 
hose assemblies because section 5.1 of the stan- 
dard requires each hydraulic brake hose assembly 
to have end fittings which are permanently at- 
tached by crimping or swaging. This final rule 
allows the end fittings to be labeled metrically, and 
the information provided on the end fittings to be 
expressed metrically. Since all hoses and end fit- 
tings that are assembled by mechanics will be 
labeled in inch or metric units, assemblers should 
have no difficulty in correctly matching hoses and 
end fittings. 

Table Illia) 

The agency has decided not to adopt the pro- 
posed Table Ill(a) in this final rule. Table Ill(a) 
specified physical dimensions for metric sizes of 
air brake tubing intended for use with reusable 
end fittings. Since the time of the proposal of Table 
Ill(a), however, the industry has moved to stan- 
dardize on the sizes of air brake tubing labeled in 
metric units. Dimensional requirements for metric- 
sized air brake tubing has been specified by the 
SAE in Standard J1394 (April 1983). These speci- 
fications are equivalent to those proposed in Table 
Ill(a) by NHTSA. Similarly, the International 
Standards Organization (ISO) has moved towards 
the development of specifications for metric-sized 
air brake tubing in its draft form of TC22-SC2- 
WGl-173(e). Since the industry has moved to 
voluntarily standardize on sizes of metrically 
labeled brake tubing, the agency has decided it is 
unnecessary to specify dimensional requirements 
for air brake tubing at this time. 

Tables IV, V, VI 

Table IV of Standard No. 106 specifies test 
cylinder radii for air brake hoses of varying 
diameters. Hoses must not show visible cracks as a 
result of exposure to various test conditions, such 



as low temperatures, when bent around the test 
cylinder. Table V lists test requirements for high 
and low temperature resistance, bend, and defor- 
mation tests for vacuum brake hose, specifying the 
test values for different sizes of hose. Table VI pro- 
vides test specimen dimensions and feeler gage 
dimensions for the deformation test for vacuum 
brake hoses. Presently the sizes of brake hoses 
referenced in these tables are in inch-size units. 
The amendment would provide the test values for 
specified sizes of metric-sized brake hoses as well 
as for the inch-size hoses. 

Several commenters addressed the changes in 
Tables IV, V, and VI, proposed in the NPRM. 
Stratoflex suggested changes in the millimeter 
sizes referenced in Table IV and requested the 
table's column heading be changed to read 
"Nominal inside hose diameter in inches (milli- 
meters)." The requirements of Table IV were 
previously specified on the basis of the inside 
diameter of the hose. However, in February 1974 
(39 FR 7428), the agency revised the table to read 
"Hose, nominal diameter in inches." Since nominal 
diameter of traditional rubber hose refers to inter- 
nal diameter and nominal diameter of tubing re- 
fers to outside diameter, the revision was made to 
include outside dimensions. In light of this revi- 
sion, the agency does not find reason to change 
this column heading as suggested by this 
commenter. 

Stratoflex also suggested deleting references to 
5-, 8-, 10-, and 16-millimeter sizes in Tables V and 
VI, or adding these sizes to Table Ill(a). This sug- 
gestion was made in order to "maintain consisten- 
cy in the document." In response to this comment, 
the agency notes that Table Ill(a) was proposed for 
sizes of metric air brake tubing, while Tables V 
and VI reference metric vacuum brake hose sizes. 
These metric sizes represent the sizes of metric 
brake hoses "as manufactured," and include all the 
sizes of metric brake hoses currently in use. Since 
the metric sizes listed in the tables are not conver- 
sions but instead represent actual sizes of metric 
hose presently manufactured, the various metric 
sizes proposed in Table Ill(a) for air brake tubing 
and in Tables V and VI for vacuum brake tubing 
would not be identical. 

The RMA commented that the metric units 
referenced in Tables IV and V of the NPRM imply 
hard conversions of the inch dimensions. The com- 
menter stated that hard conversions have not been 
adopted by the industry. The agency reiterates 



PART571;S106-PRE44 



that the metric sizes referenced in the tables were 
not intended to represent conversions of inch-size 
hose, but were included in the tables for brake 
hose manufactured in metric sizes. The metric 
sizes listed in the tables represent all metric-sized 
brake hose currently being manufactured in the in- 
ternational industry. By referencing these sizes in 
the tables, the agency intended to provide the test 
values for these specific sizes of metric-sized brake 
hoses. 

In order to avoid any appearance that metric 
values inserted in the tables constitute conver- 
sions, the agency has revised the proposed tables. 
Separate columns or rows are provided for inch- 
size hoses and metric-size hoses. 

American Motors Corporation noted a mixture 
of dimensional systems in Tables I through IV, 
and suggested referencing the Systeme Interna- 
tional d'Unites (SI) system for labeling brake hose 
at all applicable places in these tables. The agen- 
cy interprets this comment to suggest using base 
units of the SI system in the standard. This ap- 
proach would be impractical as the base unit of 
SI, for length is the meter. NHTSA believes that 
the use of the derived SI unit, the millimeter, will 
result in a comprehensible and uniform system of 
measurement. 

Test Requirements 

Eaton commented that a 6-mm O.D. tube it 
tested that was coupled with a metric fitting did 
not meet the 50-pound tensile load requirement of 
S7.3.10. The commenter expressed concern 
whether the current performance criteria of the 
standard could be directly applicable to the metric 
sizes specified in Table Ill(a). The agency sees no 
reason why a metric-size hose would not pass the 
same requirements as for an inch-size hose of 
similar dimensions, and has concluded that no 
changes need be made to these requirements for 
the metric-size hoses referenced in the final rule. 

Eaton commented that S7.3.10 should reference 
"9 mm" instead of "10 mm" in paragraph 7.3.10 for 
the 150 pounds tensile requirement. Currently the 
tensile strength requirements of S7.3.10 specify 
that air brake hose assemblies with nominal inter- 
nal diameters of 3/8 inch or 1/2 inch must with- 
stand a pull of 150 pounds. The agency decided 
against requiring a brake hose with nominal inter- 
nal diameter of 9 mm to withstand a 150-pounds 
tensile strength requirement because a hose of 
this size is less than 3/8 inch in nominal internal 



diameter. As announced in the NPRM, in pro- 
posing this amendment allowing the use of metric- 
sized brake hoses, the agency did not intend to 
change the performance criteria applicable to a 
particular size of hose. Therefore, hoses with 
nominal internal diameters less than 3/8 inch will 
continue to meet the 50-pounds test of S7.3.10. 

Braid Reinforcement 

Eaton raised the issue of air brake tubing con- 
struction. According to that commenter, nonmetal- 
lic air brake tubing manufactured in the United 
States which complies with Standard No. 106 also 
complies with the requirements of SAE Standard 
J844d. SAE J844d requires the use of fiber rein- 
forcement in hose sizes 3/8 inch through 3/4 inch 
outside diameter. Eaton expressed concern that 
the ISO's draft proposal for Thermoplastic Tubing 
for Use in Air Brake Systems does not require the 
use of fiber reinforcement in the larger sizes of 
such hose, and suggested that the metric sizes of 
air brake hose also be required to comply with the 
SAE construction parameters. This amendment to 
Standard No. 106 does not require fiber reinforce- 
ment for these larger sizes of air brake tubing, 
since this final rule is limited to the issues raised 
by Saab-Scandia's petition. However, if in the 
future it becomes apparent that construction re- 
quirements for air brake tubing should be included 
in Standard No. 106, then the agency will address 
that issue at the proper time. 

In consideration of the foregoing. Standard No. 
106, Brake Hoses, 49 CFR Part 571.106, is 
amended to read as set forth below. 

1. S5.2.2(d) is revised to read as follows: 

(d) The nominal inside diameter of the hose ex- 
pressed in inches or fractions of inches, or in 
millimeters followed by the abbreviation "mm." 

2. In table 1, the column entitled "Hydraulic 
brake hose, inside diameter" is amended by re- 
vising the phrase "1/8 inch or less" to read "1/8 
inch or 3 mm or less"; by adding the phrase "or 4 to 

5 mm" after the phrase "3/16 inch"; and by revising 
the phrase "1/4 inch or more" to read "1/4 inch or 

6 mm or more." 

3. Table II is amended by revising the headings 
under the phrase "Slack, inches" to read: "1/8 inch 
or 3 mm hose or less" and "more than 1/8 inch or 3 
mm hose." 

4. S6.6.1(b) is revised to read as follows: 

(b) Condition a cylinder in air at minus 40 °F for 
70 hours, using a cylinder of 2 1/2 inches diameter 



PART 571; S106-PRE 45 



for test of hose less than 1/8 inch or 3 mm, 3 inches 
for tests of 1/8 inch or 3 mm hose, 3 1/2 inches for 
tests of 3/16 and 1/4 inch hose or of 4 to 6 mm hose, 
and 4 inches for tests of hose greater than 1/4 inch 
or 6 mm in diameter. 

5. S7.2.1(d) is revised to read as follows: 

(d) The nominal inside diameter of the hose ex- 
pressed in inches or fractions of inches or in 
millimeters, or the nominal outside diameter of 
plastic tubing expressed in inches or fractions of 
inches or in millimeters followed by the letters 
O.D. The abbreviation "mm" shall follow hose sizes 
that are expressed in millimeters. (Examples of in- 
side diameter: 1/8, 1/2 [1/2SP in the case of 1/2 inch 
special air brake hose], 4 mm, 6 mm. Examples of 
outside diameter: 1/4 O.D., 12 mm O.D.) 

6. S7.2.2(d) is revised to read as follows: 

(d) The nominal inside diameter of the hose to 
which the fitting is properly attached expressed in 
inches or fractions of inches or in millimeters, or 
the outside diameter of the plastic tubing to which 
the fitting is properly attached expressed in inches 
or fractions of inches or in millimeters followed by 
the letters O.D. (See examples in S7.2.1(d).) The ab- 
breviation "mm" shall follow hose sizes that are 
expressed in millimeters. 

7. Table IV is revised to read: 



TABLE IV, AIR BRAKE HOSE DIAMETERS AND TEST CYLINDER RADII 


Nominal hose diameter, in.* 


1/8 


3/16 


1/4 


5/16 


3/8.13/32 


7/16, 1/2 


5/8 


mm." 


3 


4.5 


6 


8 


10 


12 


16 


Radius of lest cylinder 
m inches 


1 1/2 


2 


2 1/2 


3 


3 1/2 


4 


4 1/2 



'These sizes are listed to provide test values for brake hoses manufactured 
in these sizes They do not represent conversions 

8. S7.3.10 amended by revising the section to read: 
S7.3.10 Tensile strength. An air brake hose 

assembly (other than a coiled nylon tube assembly 
which meets the requirements of §393.45 of this 
title) designed for use between frame and axle or 
between a towed and a towing vehicle shall with- 
stand, without separation of the hose from its end 
fittings, a pull of 250 pounds if it is 1/4 inch or less 
or 6 mm or less in nominal internal diameter, or a 
pull of 325 pounds if it is larger than 1/4 inch or 
6 mm in nominal internal diameter. An air brake 
hose assembly designed for use in any other appli- 
cation shall withstand, without separation of the 
hose from its end fitting, a pull of 50 pounds if it is 
1/4 inch or 6 mm or less in nominal internal diame- 
ter, 150 pounds if it is 3/8 or 1/2 inch or 10 mm to 
12 mm in nominal internal diameter, or 325 pounds 
if it is larger than 1/2 inch or 12 mm in nominal in- 
ternal diameter (S8.9). 

9. S7.3.11 is amended by revising the section to read: 



S.7.3.11 Water absorption and tensile 
strength. After immersion in distilled water for 
70 hours (S8.10), an air brake hose assembly 
(other than a coiled tube assembly which meets 
the requirements of §393.45 of this title) designed 
for use between frame and axle or between a towed 
and a towing vehicle shall withstand without 
separation of the hose from its end fittings a pull of 
250 pounds if it is 1/4 inch or 6 mm or less in nominal 
internal diameter, or a pull of 325 pounds if it is 
larger than 1/4 inch or 6 mm in nominal internal 
diameter. After immersion in distilled water for 
70 hours (S8.10), an air brake hose assembly de- 
signed for use in any other application shall with- 
stand without separation of the hose from its end 
fitting a pull of 50 pounds if it is 1/4 inch or 6 mm or 
less in nominal internal diameter, 150 pounds if it is 
3/8 inch or 1/2 inch or 10 to 12 mm in nominal inter- 
nal diameter, or 325 pounds if it is larger than 1/2 
inch or 12 mm in nominal internal diameter (S8.9). 

10. S9.1.1(d) is revised to read as follows: 

(d) The nominal inside diameter of the hose ex- 
pressed in inches or fractions of inches or in 
millimeters, or the nominal outside diameter of 
plastic tubing expressed in inches or fractions of 
inches or in millimeters followed by the letters OD. 
The abbreviation "mm" shall follow hose sizes that 
are expressed in millimeters. (Example of inside 
diameter: 7/32, 1/4, 4 mm. Example of outside 
diameter: 1/4 O.D., 12 mm O.D.) 

11. S9.1.2(d) is revised to read as follows: 

(d) The nominal inside diameter of the hose to 
which the fitting is properly attached expressed in 
inches or fractions of inches or in millimeters, or the 
outside diameter of the plastic tubing to which the 
fitting is properly attached expressed in inches or 
fraction of inches or in millimeters followed by the 
letters O.D. (See examples in S9.1.1(d).) The ab- 
breviation "mm" shall follow hose sizes that are ex- 
pressed in millimeters. 

12. In tables V and VI, column 1, referring to 
hose inside diameter is amended by changing it to 
read (note: columns after column 1 remain unchanged): 

Issued on January 22, 1985. 



Diane K. Steed 
Administrator 

50 FR 4688 
February 1, 1985 



PART 571; S106-PRE 46 



TABLE V — VACUUM BRAKE HOSE TEST REQUIREMENTS 



Hose Inside Diameter 


• 


High Temp. Resistance 




Low Temp. Resistance 


Inches 


Millimeters 


Hose Length, 
inches 


Radius of 
Cylinder 
inches 


Hose Length, Radius of 
inches Cylinder 
inches 


7/32 


5 


8 


1 1/2 


17 1/2 3 


1/4 


6 


9 


1 1/2 


17 1/2 3 


9/32 


- 


9 


1 3/4 


19 — 


11/32 


8 


9 


1 3/4 


19 - 


3/8 


10 


10 


13/4 


19 — 


7/16 


- 


11 


2 


- — 


15/32 


- 


11 


2 


- — 


1/2 


12 


11 


— 


- — 


5/8 


16 


12 


— 


— — 


3/4 


- 


14 


— 


— - 


1 


- 


16 


- 


- 



■These sizes are listed to provide test values for brake hoses manufactured in these sizes. They do not represent conversions. 



TABLE VI— DIMENSIONS OF TEST SPECIMEN AND FEELER GAGE FOR 
DEFORMATION TEST 



Hose inside 
diameter' 



Specimen 
dimensions 
(see fig. 4) 



Feeler gage 
dimensions 



In. 



Mm. 



Depth 
(inch) 



Length 
(inch) 



Width 
(inch) 



Thickness 
(inch) 



7/32 


5 


3»4 


1/8 


316* 


1/4 


6 


1/16 


1/8 


1/16 


3/32 


— 


1/16 


1/8 


1/16 


1 1/32 


8 


5/64 


3/16 


3/64 


3/8 


10 


3/32 


3/16 


3/32 


7/16 


— 


5/64 


1/4 


5/64 


15/32 


— 


3/64 


1/4 


5ffi4 


1/2 


12 


1/8 


1/4 


1/8 


5/8 


16 


3/32 


1/4 


5/32 


3/4 


— 


3/16 


1/4 


3/16 


1 


- 


1/4 


1/4 


1/4 



'These sizes are listed to provide test values for brake hoses manufactured 
in these sizes. They do not represent conversions. 



PART 571; S106-PRE 47-48 



PREAMBLE TO AN AMENDMENT TO 
FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 106 



Brake Hoses 

(Docket No. 82-02; Notice 3) 



ACTION: Final rule. 



SUMMARY: This notice amends the air brake hose 
adhesion test of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 
Standard No. 106, Brake Hoses. The adhesion test 
is included in FMVSS No. 106 to assure that the 
various layers of an air brake hose do not separate 
in service. The test measures the force required to 
separate adjacent layers of a brake hose. This rule 
amends the standard to exclude the force levels 
recorded during the initial and final 20 percent of 
the testing from the calculation of adhesion value. 
The agency believes that those data should be ex- 
cluded because they can be artificially influenced 
by variables other than the actual adhesion of the 
brake hose layers. This rule also changes the test 
apparatus used to measure adhesion value. The 
new apparatus, a tension-type machine, is more 
widely used by test laboratories than the 
pendulum-type apparatus currently referenced in 
the standard, and provides more valid and con- 
sistent data. 

This rulemaking action commenced in response 
to a petition for rulemaking submitted by the B.F. 
Goodrich Company. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 6, 1986. In addition, this 
rule provides for an optional immediate effective 
date. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On February 
18, 1982, the agency published a notice (47 FR 
7293) granting a petition for rulemaking submitted 
by the B.F. Goodrich Company (Goodrich) and re- 
questing comments on the issues raised by the peti- 
tion. Goodrich's petiton concerned technical 
changes to the adhesion test for air brake hoses set 
forth in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 
(FMVSS) No. 106, Brake Hoses. That company re- 



quested the agency to adopt two changes to the 
adhesion test: (1) that adhesion value, i.e., the 
force required to separate adjacent layers of a 
brake hose, be determined by an averaging techni- 
que rather than by the current method of using the 
minimum force recorded during the test; and, (2) 
that the force levels recorded in separating the 
layers of the brake hose at the beginning and end 
of the test be disregarded. 

Comments were received on the advantages and 
disadvantages of specifying an average adhesion 
value and disregarding portions at the ends of the 
test chart. After considering those comments, the 
agency concluded that the current method of 
determining adhesion value by an absolute 
minimum value furthers the interests of safety. 
Accordingly, in a notice of proposed rulemaking 
(NPRM) issued in May 1985, NHTSA terminated 
further rulemaking as to that portion of Goodrich's 
petition requesting that an averaging technique be 
used. (50 FR 21090; May 22, 1985.) However, that 
notice also announced that the agency had ten- 
tatively determined that a portion of the test chart 
should be excluded from the calculation of adhesion 
value, and proposed to revise S8.6.4 to set this ex- 
cluded portion at the first and last 20 percent of 
the adhesion test chart. 

Testing Brake Hose Adhesion 

The adhesion test is included in FMVSS No. 106 
to ensure that the various layers of a brake hose do 
not separate in service. Low adhesion in brake 
hoses can result in the build-up of air between 
plies. The trapped air can cause inward ballooning 
of the hose, resulting in slow reaction of the brakes 
served, or a complete malfunction due to the hose 
conduit being blocked altogether. 



PART 571; S 106-PRE 49 



The first step of the adhesion test procedure is to 
cut a specimen of brake hose, one inch or more in 
length. The specimen is then cut longitudinally 
along its entire length to the level of contact with a 
lower layer. The layer to be tested is peeled back 
along the longitudinal cut so as to create a flap 
large enough to be attached to a test apparatus. 
The test apparatus applies tension in a direction 
essentially perpendicular to the axis of the brake 
hose so as to separate, i.e., unroll, the layer being 
tested from the rest of the brake hose. A chart is 
produced which has inches of separation as one 
coordinate and applied tension as the other. 
Paragraph S7.3.7 requires that, except for hose 
reinforced by wire, an air brake hose must with- 
stand a tensile force of eight pounds per inch of 
length before the adjacent layers separate. 
Paragraph S8.6.4 of the standard provides that 
adhesion value— i.e., the force required to separate 
adjacent layers of a brake hose— is "the minimum 
force recorded on the portion of the chart cor- 
responding to the actual separation of the part 
being tested." 

Disregarding Force Levels at Beginning and End of 
Test 

Goodrich requested that the force levels recorded 
on the beginning and end of the test chart be 
disregarded because adhesion between layers 
might be disturbed during sample preparation, and 
because samples can distort near the end of the 
test, resulting in erratic values. The February 1982 
notice requested comments on this issue. Several 
comments where received, all of which have been 
discussed in the May 1985 NPRM. 

Most of the commenters agreed that an excluded 
area at each end of the test curve was necessary, 
but were divided as to how much of the chart 
should be disregarded. Porter and Aeroquip 
agreed with Goodrich that the beginning and end 
of the chart should be excluded because those por- 
tions are affected by variables resulting from sam- 
ple preparation. Goodyear stated that the initial 
and final 20 or 25 percent of the test chart could be 
spurious because of distortion or mechanical ef- 
fects, and believed that amending the standard to 
exclude those portions would be reasonable and ac- 
ceptable. Midland Ross and Blue Bird commented 
that disregarding the beginning and end of the 



adhesion test chart has merit, but that 20 percent 
on either side was too much to exclude. 

After considering those comments, the agency 
proposed a change to Standard No. 106 along the 
lines suggested by Goodrich. (50 FR at 21092.) 
NHTS A believed that an excluded area at each end 
of the test curve might be necessary because the 
end points on the test curve appeared to vary con- 
siderably depending on the sensitivity of the re- 
cording device and variation of sample prepara- 
tion. A 20 percent exclusion zone was proposed 
since the agency believed that this area would not 
result in any safety problems and would cover the 
portions of the chart which were artificially in- 
fluenced by variables other than the actual adhe- 
sion of the hose layers. This change was intended 
to ensure that the remaining portion of the test 
chart corresponds more accurately to the actual 
adhesion value of a brake hose specimen. 

Goodyear was the only commenter to the NPRM. 
That company concurred with the proposed 
changes and reiterated its belief that the initial and 
final 20 or 25 percent of the adhesion test trace 
could be spurious because of distortion or 
mechanical effects, and should therefore be 
excluded. 

This rule amends paragraph S8.6.4(a) of Stand- 
ard No. 106 to specify that the actual separation of 
the part of the brake hose being tested shall be 
determined by excluding the protion of the chart 
which corresponds to the initial and final 20 per- 
cent of the separation distance along the chart's 
displacement axis. NHTSA has concluded that this 
excluded area would cover the portions of the chart 
which are artificially influenced by variables other 
than the actual adhesion of the hose layers, and 
that safety would not be negatively affected by this 
change. 

As explained in the NPRM, each air brake hose 
tested for compliance with Standard No. 106 must 
meet the adhesion test requirement regardless of 
the specimen tested. Disregarding 20 percent at 
the beginning and end of the chart jnelds test 
results for 60 percent of the test specimen. This 
does not mean that 40 percent of the hose is not 
tested to the adhesion requirements of the stand- 
ard. Multiple specimens of the brake hose can be 
oriented on the test apparatus so that test results 
for the entire circumference of the hose can be 
obtained. Several one inch long test specimens are 



PART 571; S 106-PRE 50 



usually cut from a single piece of hose. These addi- 
tional samples are each individually cut axially in 
preparation for the adhesion test. Another hose 
specimen, adjacent to the original specimen, can be 
tested for compliance, with the cut made at a dif- 
ferent point from the original. The portion of the 
air brake hose falling within the 40 percent range 
that was disregarded in the first test can thus be 
included in the portion of the hose tested for com- 
pliance in a subsequent test. 

Test Apparatus 

Paragraph S8.6.1 of FMVSS No. 106 currently 
references a pendulum type test apparatus in the 
adhesion test procedure. The NPRM proposed to 
reference a tension-type test apparatus in its place. 
The tension-type apparatus is commonly available 
and widely used in brake hose testing laboratories. 
This type of machine is a constant-speed, pulling 
device whose rate of pull can be set to the required 
in the standard. A load cell is utilized to measure 
the resistive load of the bonded layers of hose as 
they are separated by the machine. 

Goodyear, the only commenter to the NPRM, 
concurred with this change. Since NHTSA believes 
that the tension-type apparatus is widely used and 
provides more valid and consistent data than the 
pendulum apparatus, this rule amends S8.6.1 as 
proposed. 

Effective Date 

These amendments are effective July 6, 1986. In 
addition, this rule provides for an optional im- 
mediate effective date. The agency finds good 
cause for an optional immediate effective date 
since the amendments clarify the method of 
calculating the actual adhesion value of a brake 
hose. Further, there is good cause for specifying an 
optional immediate effective date for use of the 
tension-type test apparatus since most, if not all, 
compliance testing is presently done on this 
machine. The alternative effective date of 180 days 



after publication of this rule in the Federal Register 
would provide adequate leadtime for any users 
presently testing with a pendulum or inclination 
balance type apparatus. 

In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR Part 
571 is amended as follows: 

S8.6.1 Apparatiis. 

A tension testing machine that is power-driven 
and that applies a constant rate of extension is 
used for measuring the force required to separate 
the layers of the test specimen. The apparatus is 
constructed so that: 

(a) The recording head inlcudes a freely rotating 
form with an outside diameter substantially the 
same as the inside diameter of the hose specimen 
to be placed on it. 

(b) The freely rotating form is mounted so that 
its axis of rotation is in the plane of the ply being 
separated from the specimen and so that the ap- 
plied force is perpendicular to the tangent of the 
specimen circumference at the line of separation. 

(c) The rate of travel of the power-actuated grip 
is a uniform one inch per minute and the capacity 
of the machine is such that maximum applied ten- 
sion during the test is not more than 85 percent 
nor less than 15 percent of the machine's rated 
capacity. 

(d) The machine produces a chart with separa- 
tion as one coordinate and applied tension as the 
other. 

S8.6.4(a) The adhesion value shall be the 
minimum force recorded on the chart excluding 
that portion of the chart which corresponds to the 
initial and final 20 percent portion along the 
displacement axis. 



Issued on December 31, 1985 



Diane K. Steed 
Administrator 

51 F.R. 603 
January 7, 1986 



PART 571; S 106-PRE 51-52 



PREAMBLE TO AN AMENDMENT TO 
FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 106 

Brake Hoses 
(Docket No. 85-02; Notice 2) 



ACTION: Final Rule. 

SU M M ARY: The purpose of this notice is to amemi 
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 
No. 116, Motor Vehicle Brake Fluids, and FMVSS 
No. 106, Brake Hoses, to revise the referee 
materials and test procedures referenced in por- 
tions of those standards. FMVSS No. 116 and 
FMVSS No. 106 currently reference the referee 
material (RM) identified as RM-1 fluid by the 
Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE). However, 
RM-1 fluid is now commercially unavailable, and is 
less representative of brake fluids used in vehicles 
on the road today. The SAE in its January 1980 
revision of Standard J1703, "Motor Vehicle Brake 
Fluid," substituted a new referee material, 
RM-66-03, in place of RM-1 for use in the J1703 
compatibility test. This final rule adopts this 
revision and references RM-66-03 for use in the 
compatibility test of Standard No. 106, and the 
compatibility and fluid chemical stability tests of 
Standard No. 116. This notice also references a 
new referee material, TEGME, in the humidifica- 
tion procedure of Standard No. 116, adjusts the 
water content level and test temperature refer- 
enced in the test procedures, and amends the 
number of sets of stroking test materials in the 
stroking test procedures. This notice also makes 
procedural modifications to Standard No. 116's 
humidification procedure adopted from the SAE, 
and corrects the description of test procedures 
used to evaluate brake fluid stroking properties. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: Due to the commercial 
unavailability of RM-1 fluid, this rule is effective 
May 6, 1986. However, because the agency is con- 
cerned that manufacturers who might still be using 
RM-1 fluid to test their products should be able to 
use their existing supplies, use of RM-1 fluid may 
continue until November 3, 1986. 



SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Federal Motor 
Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 116, Motor 
Vehicle Brake Fluids, and FMVSS No. 106, Brake 
Hoses, specify performance requirements for 
motor vehicle brake fluids and brake hoses. 
Included in the performance requirements of 
Standard No. 106 is a brake fluid compatibUity 
test, and included in Standard No. 116 are com- 
patibility, chemical stability, and humidification 
tests. Referee materials are used to test specimens 
of brake hose and brake fluid for compliance with 
the standards' requirements. These materials pro- 
vide a basis of comparison between the results of 
the tests and the specifications of the standards. 
The procedures for the compatibOity, chemical sta- 
bility, and humidification tests currently reference 
the referee material brake fluid specified by the 
Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) in the 
April 1968 version of SAE Standard J1703b. Stan- 
dard J 1703b, in turn, references a referee material 
(RM) identified as RM-1. (Standard No. 116's 
description of SAE Standard J1703b, "Motor 
Vehicle Brake Fluid," April 1968, is incorrect in 
that the correct reference should be to J1703b, Ju- 
ly 1970. In 1970, the agency proposed to reference 
test procedures of J 1703a, April 1968, in Standard 
No. 116. Subsequently, NHTSA changed reference 
from J1703a to J1703b. The effort to make this 
change inadvertently resulted in showing April 
1968, the date of J1703a, as the date of J1703b. 
This notice corrects the error by referencing 
J1703b, July 1970.) 

This rule amends FMVSS Nos. 116 and 106 to 
revise the referee materials and test procedures 
referenced in portions of those standards. The 
SAE, in its January 1980 and November 1983 revi- 
sions of Standard J1703, "Motor Vehicle Brake 
Fluid," substituted a new referee material, 
RM-66-03, in place of RM-1 for use in the J1703 



PART 571; S 106-PRE 53 



compatibility test. This notice adopts this revision 
and references RM-66-03 for use in the compati- 
bility test of Standard No. 106, and the compatibil- 
ity and fluid chemical stability tests of Standard 
No. 116. This notice also references a new referee 
material, TEGME, in the humidification pro- 
cedures of Standard No. 116, adjusts the water 
content level and test temperature referenced in 
the test procedures, and amends the number of 
sets of stroking test materials in the stroking test 
of Standard No. 116. This notice also adopts SAE 
revisions to FMVSS No. 116's humidification test 
which had been inadvertently omitted from the 
amendatory language of the proposed rule, and 
corrects the description of test procedures used to 
evaluate brake fluid stroking properties. 

Testing Brake Hose/ Fluid Characteristics 

Brake fluid compatibility is an important factor 
in establishing brake hose life and strength 
characterisitcs. The compatibility test of FMVSS 
No. 106 measures hydraulic brake hose com- 
patibility with brake fluid. The brake hose test 
specimen is filled with the SAE Compatibility 
Fluid for a required number of hours at specified 
temperatures, and is then subjected to constriction 
and burst strength tests. Currently, RM-1 fluid is 
referenced in the test procedures for the 
standard's brake fluid compatibility test. 

Under the compatibility requirements of FMVSS 
No. 116, the compatibiltiy of a brake fluid with an 
RM fluid is determined. The compatibility fluid 
that is used in these tests as a referee material 
should be representative of the fluids found in a 
braking system in service. The tests measure the 
compatibility of fluids of different chemical bases 
by checking whether there are undesirable 
chemical interactions resulting from the mixture of 
fluids. Paragraph S6.10 sets out the procedures for 
evaluating the compatibility of a brake fluid with 
other liquids used in a hydraulic brake system (i.e., 
other brake fluids). This section currently 
references RM-1 fluid as the referee material used 
in that test procedure. 

The humidification tests of FMVSS No. 116 
measure the amount of water absorbed by a brake 
fluid as compared to a reference fluid. The 
presence of water in a brake system degrades 
braking performance and safety by lowering the 
boiling point of brake fluid, increasing the possi- 



bility of vapor lock and the corroding of system 
components, and the depositing of sediment in 
wheel cylinders that could cause a system malfunc- 
tion. 

Standard No. 116 estabhshes minimum wet 
equilibrium reflux boiling points (ERBP's) for dif- 
ferent grades of brake fluid, and the test pro- 
cedures of S6.2 determine the water content and 
wet ERBP of brake fluid specimens. The current 
test procedure specifies that sample fluids of RM-1 
and the test specimen are to be humidified 
simultaneously under controlled conditions. The 
SAE RM-1 fluid is used as the reference fluid that 
establishes the "endpoint" for humidification. 
When the water content of the RM-1 fluid is 
measured to be 3.50 ± 0.05 percent by weight, the 
test fluid sample is removed from the humidifica- 
tion apparatus. After humidification, the water 
and ERBP of the sample are determined. 

Section 7.2 of FMVSS No. 116 also refers to 
RM-1 fluid as a reference for measuring the water 
content of brake fluids. 

RM-66-03 Fluid 

A notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on this 
rulemaking action was published on March 7, 1985 
(50 FR 9294). The NPRM explained that FMVSS 
Nos. 106 and 116 currently reference SAE RM-1 
Compatibility Fluid in their test procedures. In 
that notice, the agency announced its tentative 
finding that the inclusion of RM-1 fluid is no longer 
desirable for the following reasons. 

The agency stated its belief that reference to 
RM-1 fluid should be changed because manufac- 
ture of the fluid has ceased. A new fluid, identified 
as RM-66-03 Compatibility Fluid, has replaced the 
RM-1 fluid in test procedures described in the 
January 1980 and November 1983 revisions of 
SAE Standard J1703. This new fluid is described 
by the SAE as a blend of four proprietary 
polyglycol brake fluids of fixed composition, in 
equal parts by volume. The four fluids selected 
comprise three factory-fill and one after-market 
fluid as follows: DOW HD50-4, DOW 455, Delco 
Supreme II, and OHn HDS-79. 

While RM-1 fluid is not readily available, 
RM-66-03 fluid is available from the SAE in the 
blend and formulation developed by the SAE for 
J1703. The indiviual manufacturers of the four pro- 
prietary fluids have indicated to the SAE Brake 



PART 571; S 106-PRE 54 



Fluids Subcommittee and Reference Materials 
Subcommittee that the proprietary formulation 
might be changed in the commercial market, but 
that the formulations developed for the RM-66-03 
fluid would be guaranteed to be available for a 
minimum five-year period commencing May 1983, 
i.e., at least until May 1988. 

The updated reference to RM-66-03 fluid by the 
SAE is a result of the termination of the manufac- 
turing of the RM-1 fluid. Several of the ingredients 
contained in the RM-1 fluid are not available to 
fluid manufacturers since the materials are no 
longer used in today's fluids, or have become pro- 
hibitively costly to obtain. As a result, manufac- 
turers are unwiUing to produce more RM-1 fluid. 

In addition, RM-1 fluid is not representative of 
fluids in service today. The agency stated its belief 
that revising the referee material used in the com- 
patibility test is warranted since the purposes of 
that test would be better served by a referee 
material more representative of today's fluids. In- 
clusion of RM-1 fluid in FMVSS Nos. 116 and 106 
is also undesirable because RM-1 fluid contains tox- 
ic materials which require elaborate protective 
procedures and special handling and manufactur- 
ing processes. 

In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA pro- 
posed an amendment to FMVSS Nos. 106 and 116 
to substitute new referee materials for the com- 
patibility and humidification tests. For Standard 
No. 106's compatibility requirement and test pro- 
cedures (S5.3.9 and S6.7), and Standard No. 116's 
compatibility (6.10), fluid chemical stability (6.5), 
and water content (7.2) tests, the new referee 
material was proposed to be RM-66-03 fluid as 
described in the January 1980 version of SAE 
Standard J1703. 

Seven commenters responded to the NPRM. 
Each commenter agreed with the proposal to 
reference RM-66-03 fluid in FMVSS Nos. 106 and 
116. General Motors Corporation (GM) and 
Chrysler Corporation agreed with the agency's 
tentative conclusion that the new referee material 
would be more available and compatible with cur- 
rent brake fluids than RM-1 fluid. Other com- 
menters believed that the change would be 
practical and reasonable. 

NHTSA has considered the comments to the 
NPRM and has decided to amend FMVSS Nos. 106 
and 116 to reference RM-66-03 compatibility fluid. 



One slight change has been made to the NPRM's 
proposal. The NPRM proposed to reference the 
RM-66-03 fluid as described in the January 1980 
revision of SAE Standard J1703. This rule will 
reference RM-66-03 fluid as described in the 
November 1983 revision of J1703. The two SAE 
revisions of J 1703 are identical in their descrip- 
tions of RM-66-03; the agency is making this 
change in order to keep FMVSS Nos. 106 and 116 
current by referencing the more recent SAE 
standard. 

Use of the RM-66-03 fluid in the test procedures 
of Standards Nos. 116 and 106 should have a 
beneficial impact on safety. Since the RM-1 com- 
patibiHty fluid currently referenced in FMVSS 
Nos. 106 and 116 is not commercially available, 
ascertaining whether hoses and fluids comply with 
certain requirements related to compatibility and 
boiling points is difficult. Amending the standards 
to allow the use of RM-66-03 fluid in place of RM-1 
provides a readily available compatibility fluid for 
the compliance tests which is more representative 
of fluids used in today's vehicles. 

TEGME, Brake Fluid Grade 

In humidification test procedures under FMVSS 
No. 116, the referee material fluid is used as a 
reference to determine when to terminate the 
humidification procedure. Currently, RM-1 fluid is 
used as this referee material. NHTSA proposed to 
amend Standard No. 116 to reference a new 
referee fluid, triethylene glycol monomethyl ether 
(TEGME), brake fluid grade, as the referee 
material noted in Standard No. 116's procedures 
for a brake fluid's wet equilibrium reflux boiling 
point (S6.2). TEGME has been referenced by the 
SAE in J1703, January 1980, and J1703, 
November 1983, as the referee material used in the 
humidification test procedure. 

In addition to referencing the TEGME material, 
the agency also proposed to amend S6.2 of FMVSS 
No. 116 to adjust the final water content of the 
referee material fluid to 3.70% water (instead of 
the current requirement of 3.5%), change the test 
temperature to 50°C. (from 23°C.), and add a cool- 
ing period for the sealed jar sample. As explained 
in the NPRM, those changes (use of TEGME fluid, 
change in water pickup and test temperature, and 
the cool-down to room temperature) were pro- 
posed as part of the overall changes adopted from 
SAE J1703 procedures. 



PART 571; S 106-PRE 55 



All but one of the commenters to the notice sup- 
ported the changes to the TEGME fluid. Com- 
menters believed that the changes would simplify 
the test procedures and make them more cost 
effective. 

In its comment on the NPRM, Union Carbide 
questioned whether there are adequate data to 
show that the new humidification test procedure 
will produce comparable test results when applied 
to DOT-4 and DOT-5 brake fluids. That commenter 
suggested that NHTSA reconsider adopting the 
SAE J1703, January 1980 humidification test 
method or adopt it as an alternative to the current 
method that uses RM-1 fluid until complete com- 
parative testing could be performed. 

The agency does not agree with Union Carbide 
that the humidification test method of SAE J 1703, 
January 1980 should not be adopted as the new 
Standard No. 116 test procedure. The TEGME 
fluid is capable of absorbing a measurable amount 
of water in a given time and is only used as a 
reference to determine when to terminate the 
humidification process. Under the humidification 
test procedure, samples of brake fluid and TEGME 
are humidified simultaneously until a measured 
quantity of fluid is picked up in the TEGME. When 
the water content of the TEGME fluid reaches 3.7 
percent, the brake fluid test specimens are re- 
moved from the test apparatus and their water 
contents and ERBP's are measured. TEGME, the 
referee material used in the humidification pro- 
cedure, thus serves only to establish the end point 
of a test procedure. 

The 3.7 percent TEGME water pickup (at 50°C) 
corresponds to the 3.5 percent water pickup (at 
23°C) of the referee fluid (RM-1) used previously to 
determine the end point of the humidification pro- 
cedure. The agency has determined that DOT-3 
fluid picks up the same amount of water when 
humidified under procedures which use TEGME as 
the referee material as it does when humidified 
under procedures using RM-1. Therefore, the 
agency believes that the water pickup of test 
fluids, including DOT-4 and DOT-5 fluids, would 
not be affected by the change to TEGME. Ac- 
cordingly, NHTSA is amending FMVSS No. 116 to 
reference the TEGME referee material. 

The NPRM proposed to reference the TEGME 
fluid as described in the January 1980 revision of 
Standard J1703. This rule will instead reference 



TEGME as described in the November 1983 
revision of J1703. The two SAE revisions of J1703 
are identical in their descriptions of TEGME; the 
agency is making this change in order to keep 
FMVSS No. 116 current by referencing the more 
recent SAE standard. 

Humidification Test Procedures 

All commenters supported the additional 
changes to the humidification procedure of S6.2 
adopted from SAE Standard J1703. This rule 
adopts the proposed changes to S6.2 and adjusts 
the final water content of the referee material fluid 
to 3.70%, changes the test temperature to 50°C, 
and adds a cooling period for the sealed jar sample. 

Other changes to the humidification procedure 
were suggested in the comments to the NPRM. 
GM and Union Carbide Corporation pointed out 
that while NHTSA proposed to adopt the 
humidification test procedures from SAE J1703, 
the procedural modifications proposed in the 
amendatory language differed slightly from the 
SAE standard. GM suggested changing FMVSS 
No. 116's humidification procedure to agree with 
that of SAE J1703, January 1980 in order to 
facilitate testing. The following changes were sug- 
gested: S6.2.1 should be revised to require 150 ml. 
samples of brake fluid and TEGME instead of the 
proposed 100 ml. samples; S6.2.3 should be revised 
to eliminate ammonium sulfate from the list of 
reagents and materials and to specify distilled 
water and TEGME; S6.2.4 should be revised to 
load the dessicators with 450 ml. of distilled water 
instead of the ammonium sulfate /distilled water 
slurry; and S6.2.5 should be revised to use 150 ml. 
samples of the brake fluid and TEGME instead of 
the proposed 100 ml. samples. 

As evidenced by the GM and Union Carbide com- 
ments, it was clear that the agency intended to 
facilitate testing by adopting the overall changes 
to the humidification test from SAE J1703. 
Therefore, NHTSA agrees that those additional 
changes should be incorporated into this final rule. 
This rule amends S6.2.1, S6.2.3, S6.2.4 and S6.2.5 
to correct the minor omissions noted above. Fur- 
ther, S6.2.2 is revised to clarify that distilled water 
would be substituted for the salt slurry in Figure 3 
of FMVSS No. 116, Humidification Apparatus, 
when TEGME is used as the referee material. 



PART 571; S 106-PRE 56 



stroking Test 

The stroking test in FMVSS No. 116 checks the 
lubricity effect of a brake fluid on rubber com- 
ponents. The NPRM explained that the SAE had 
deternained, in its revision of J 1703, January 1980, 
that three sets of test material are sufficient to 
analyze the adequacy of test results. The notice an- 
nounced that, based on NHTSA's tentative agree- 
ment with that SAE conclusion and its belief that 
compliance testing costs would be reduced by that 
change without an adverse affect on safety, the 
agency was proposing to amend the requirements 
of S5.1.13 and S6.13 to require testing of only 
three sets of test material (consisting of wheel 
cyUnders, drums, shoe assemblies, etc.) instead of 
four sets, and eight new brake cups instead of 10. 
Since NHTSA proposed to reduce the number of 
cups tested, a reduction in the number of cups 
checked for unsatisfactory operating condition was 
also proposed. 

All comments supported the agency's proposal 
to revise the stroking test procedures. The com- 
menters believed that the changes proposed in the 
NPRM would simplify the test procedures and 
make them more cost effective. NHTSA agrees, 
and has revised S5.1.13 and S6.13 as proposed in 
the NPRM. 

In addition, this rule makes several changes to 
the stroking test procedures in FMVSS No. 116 
which directly relate to the agency's adoption of 
the SAE stroking test revision. Currently, S 6. 13.2 
describes the apparatus and equipment used for 
the stroking test and refers to figures in SAE 
Standard J 1703b which depict stroking ap- 
paratuses. Figure 1 of J 1703b depicts four sets of 
drum and shoe assemblies. Since NHTSA has 
reduced the number of sets of test materials to 
three, the agency believes that the description of 
the test apparatuses and arrangement of test 
materials should also be revised to reflect this 
change. The description of the apparatuses used in 
the stroking test is changed only to clarify that 
three sets of materials are used, instead of four. 

The following related revisions to the stroking 
test procedure are necessary to facilitate the 
change to three sets of materials. Paragraph 
S6. 13.4(c) describes the preparation and assembly 
of test apparatuses. When a shoe and drum type 
apparatus is used, S6. 13.4(c) specifies a 23 mm. 
stroke length, based on output piston movement of 



four sets of wheel cylinders. Stroke length refers 
to the distance traveled by the master cylinder 
piston to displace a certain volume of fluid in the 
test system which, in turn, forces the wheel 
cylinder pistons to travel a specified distance. 
Since the stroking test is revised to require only 
three sets of materials, the stroke length of the 
master cylinder would no longer be 23 mm. 

This rule deletes reference in S6. 13.4(c) to exact 
piston displacement measurements and a 23 mm. 
stroke length. The agency has determined that it is 
not necessary to specify master cylinder and wheel 
cylinder piston travel since those values are deter- 
mined by the characteristics of the system which 
are specified in the standard (i.e., dimensions of 
the master cylinder and wheel cylinders, and 
pressure). The stroking test apparatus is a closed 
hydraulic system; pressure of 1000 pounds per 
square inch (psi) is generated at the outlet port of 
the master cylinder, and all pistons have the same 
diameters of I'/g inch. Given the above, displace- 
ment of the wheel cylinders is directly proportional 
to the displacement of the master cylinder, and in 
the given test apparatus the stroke length of the 
master cylinder is dependent on system pressure. 
Stroke length would therefore be adjusted by the 
characteristics of the system from the former 
value of 23 mm. to a value proportioned for three 
wheel cylinders. 

Since the agency is eliminating exact wheel 
cylinder piston travel measurements and is speci- 
fying that only three sets of test materials are re- 
quired in the stroking test, this rule also deletes 
reference in S6. 13.4(c) to Figure 4 of SAE 
Standard J1703b. That figure illustrated the ap- 
proximate pressure buildup versus the master 
cylinder piston movement, and was based on the 
use of four sets of materials. S6. 13.4(c) would con- 
tinue, however, to specify that the pressure 
buildup is relatively low during the first part of the 
stroke, in order to avoid damage of the master 
cylinder's primary cup by ensuring that the 
primary cup passes the compensating port at a 
relatively low pressure. 

Typographical Errors 

This notice corrects the typographical errors in 
S5.1.9(a), S5.1.9(b) and S5.1.12 of Standard No. 
116, as proposed in the NPRM. 



PART 571; S 106-PRE 57 



Effective Date 

This rule is effective May 6, 1986. As explained 
in tfie NPRM, the agency finds good cause for this 
expedited effective date because the RM-1 fluid 
used in the testing procedures of FMVSS Nos. 116 
and 106 is commercially unavailable. Use of the 
RM-66-03 fluid will facilitate compliance testing by 
utilizing a referee material that is currently 
available and more representative of fluids in 
service. However, because the agency is concerned 
that manufacturers who might still be using RM-1 
fluid to test their products should be able to use 
their existing supplies, use of RM-1 fluid may con- 
tinue until October 26, 1986, i.e., 180 days after 
publication of this rule. 

In accordance with the above provision permit- 
ting the use of RM-1 during the interim period, this 
rule describes separate test procedures ap- 
propriate for use with RM-1 and for the new 
referee materials (i.e., RM-6603 and TEGME). 
Test procedures for RM-1 usage are specified for 
those manufacturers who choose to use that fluid 
during the 180-day period. 

Economic Effects 

NHTSA has concluded that this final rule does 
not qualify as a "major rule" within the meaning of 
Executive Order 12291, and that it is not "signifi- 
cant" within the meaning of the Department of 
Transportation's regulatory procedures. Prepara- 
tion of a regulatory impact analysis is not 
necessary for this rulemaking. The agency has 
determined further that the effects of this 
rulemaking are minor and that a full regulatory 
evaluation is not warranted. The rule references 
referee materials in Standards Nos. 116 and 106 
that are readily available to manufacturers of 
brake fluids and brake hoses. 

The agency believes that manufacturers will 
benefit by the change to RM-66-03 fluid and 
TEGME fluid in FMVSS No. 116 and RM-66-03 
fluid in FMVSS No. 106. The fluids are readily 
available whereas RM-1 is not, and are more 
representative of fluids in service today. The 
agency knows of no problems resulting from tests 
onducted with the RM-66-03 and TEGME fluids. 

Some cost savings would be realized with this 
amendment. The utilization of RM-66-03 fluid will 
reduce the costs of fluids used in compliance 
testing without sacrificing adequate test results. 
For example, as cited in the NPRM, when last 



available, RM-1 fluid cost approximately $27.00 
per quart. The cost of RM-66-03 fluid is approx- 
imately $8.00 per quart. 

Cost savings will be realized by the use of the 
TEGME fluid in the humidification tests of 
FMVSS No. 116. The TEGME fluid costs approx- 
imately $3.30 per quart. Further, using the 
TEGME fluid in compliance testing would con- 
serve the more expensive supply of RM-66-03 
brake fluid material. 

The change in the stroking test procedures will 
also result in some cost savings. The costs related 
to the quantities of materials tested will be reduced 
about 25 percent. 

Any changes to Standard Nos. 106 and 116 
referencing the RM-66-03 and TEGME fluids and 
reducing the number of test materials used in the 
stroking test will not significantly affect manufac- 
turers of brake hoses and referee materials. These 
manufacturers may benefit from some cost savings 
resulting from the changes to the standards, but 
will not otherwise be significantly affected by this 
amendment. 

In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR 
571.06, Brake Hoses, is amended as follows: 

1. S5.3.9 is revised to read as follows: 

S5.3.9 Brake Fluid Compatibility, Construc- 
tion, and Burst Stength. Except for brake hose 
assemblies designed for use with mineral or 
petroleum-based brake fluids, a hydraulic brake 
hose assembly shall meet the constriction require- 
ment of S5.3.1 after having been subjected to a 
temperature of 200°F for 70 hours while filled with 
SAE RM-66-03 Compatibility Fluid, as described in 
Appendix A of SAE Standard J1703, November 
1983, "Motor Vehicle Brake Fluid," November 
1983 (S6.7). It shall then withstand water pressure 
of 4,000 psi for 2 minutes and thereafter shall not 
rupture at less than 5,000 psi (S6.2). (SAE RM-1 
Compatibility Fluid, as described in Appendix A of 
SAE Standard J1703b, "Motor Vehicle Brake 
Fluid," July 1970, may be used in place of SAE 
RM-66-03 until November 3, 1986. 

2. Paragraph S6.7.1(a) is revised to read as 
follows: 

S6.7.1 Preparation. 

(a) Attach a hose assembly below a 1-pint reser- 
voir filled with 100 ml of SAE RM-66-03 Com- 
patibility Fluid as shown in Figure 2. (SAE RM-1 



PART 571; S 106-PRE 58 



Compatibility Fluid, as described in Appendix A of 
SAE Standard J1703b, "Motor Vehicle Brake 
Fluid," July 1970, may be used in place of SAE 
RM-66-03 until October 26, 1986. 

***** 4t 

§571.116 [Amended] 

In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR 
571.116, Motor Vehicle Brake Fluids, is amended 
as follows: 

1. S5.1.9 is revised to read as follows: 
S5.1.9 Water Tolerance. 

(a) At low temperature. When brake fluid is 
tested according to S6.9.3(a)— 

(1) * * * 

(b) At 60°C (140°F). When brake fluid is tested 
according to S6.9.3(b)— 

(1) * * * 

2. S5.1.12 is revised to read as follows: 

55.1.12 Effects on cups. When brake cups are 
subjected to brake fluid in accordance with S6.12— 

****** 

3. S5.1.13 is revised to read as follows: 

55.1.13 Stroking properties. When brake fluid is 
tested according to S6.13— 

****** 

(c) The average decrease in hardness of seven of 
the eight cups tested (six wheel cylinder and one 
master cylinder primary) shall not exceed 15 
IRHD. Not more than one of the seven cups shall 
have a decrease in hardness greater than 17 IRHD; 

(d) None of the eight cups shall be in an un- 
satisfactory operating condition as evidenced by 
stickiness, scuffing, blisters, cracking, chipping, or 
other change in shape from its original 
appearance; 

(e) None of the eight cups shall show an increase 
in base diameter greater than 0.90 mm (0.035 
inch): 

(f) The average lip diameter set of the eight cups 
shall not be greater than 65 percent: 

****** 

4. S6 is revised to read as follows: 

S6. Test procedures. Until October 26, 1986, 
SAE RM-1 Compatibility Fluid, as described in 
Appendix A of SAE Standard J1703b, "Motor 
Vehicle Brake Fluid," July 1970, may be used in 
place of TEGME and SAE RM-66-03 in the 
humidification (S6.2), chemical stability (S6.5.4), 
and compatibility (S6.10) test procedures, and as a 
referee material in S7.2. 



5. S6.2.1 is revised to read as follows: 

56.2.1 Summary of the procedure. 

(a) With TEGME: Except as provided in 
paragraph S6.2.1(b), a 150 ml sample of the brake 
fluid is humidified under controlled conditions; 150 
ml of SAE triethylene glycol monoethyl ether, brake 
fluid grade, referee material (TEGME) as described 
in Appendix E of SAE Standard J1703, November 
1983, "Motor Vehicle Brake Fluid," November 1983, 
is used to establish the end point for humidification. 
After humidification the water content and ERBP of 
the brake fluid are determined. 

(b) With RM-1: Until November 3, 1986, SAE 
RM-1 Compatibility Fluid, as described in Appen- 
dix A of SAE Standard J1703b, "Motor Vehicle 
Brake Fluid," July 1970, may be used with the 
following procedures. See S6. A 100-ml. sample of 
the brake fluid is humidified under controlled con- 
ditions: 100 ml of SAE RM-1 Compatibility Fluid is 
used to establish the end point for humidification. 
After humidification the water content and ERBP 
of the brake fluid are detemined. 

6. S6.2.2 is revised to read as follows: 

56.2.2 Apparatus for humidification. (See 
Figure 3. Until October 26, 1986, a manufacturer 
may use either TEGME or RM-1 Compatibility 
Fluid. If TEGME is used, substitute 450 ml. of 
distilled water in place of the salt slurry and 
disregard the "45 ± 7mm" dimension.) 

Test apparatus shall consist of— 

****** 

7. S 6. 2. 3 is revised to read as follows: 

56.2.3 Reagents and Materials. 

(a) Distilled water, see S7.1. 

(b) Except as provided in S6.2.3(c), SAE 
TEGME referee material. 

(c) Until October 26, 1986, a manufacturer may 
use either TEGME or SAE RM-1 Compatibility 
Fluid. See S6. 

(d) If RM-1 is used, also use ammonium sulfate 
(NH4) 2SO4, Reagent or A.C.S. grade. 

8. S6.2.4 is revised to read as follows: 

56.2.4 Preparation of Apparatus. 

(a) With TEGME: Except as provided in 
S6.2.4(b), lubricate the ground-glass joint of the 
desiccator. Pour 450 + 10 ml of distilled water into 
each desiccator and insert perforated porcelain 
desiccator plates. Place the desiccators in an oven 
with temperature controlled at 50±1°C 
(122 + 1.8°F) throughout the humidification pro- 
cedure. 



PART 571; S 106-PRE 59 



(b) With RM-1: Until October 26,1986, a 
manufacturer may use either TEGME or SAE 
RM-1 Compatibility Fluid. See S6. Lubricate the 
ground-glass joint of the desiccator. Load each 
desiccator with 450 ±25 grams of the ammonium 
sulfate and add 125 ±10 ml. of distilled water. The 
surface of the salt slurry shall lie within 45 ± 7 mm. 
of the top surface of the desiccator plate. Place the 
desiccators in an area with temperature controlled 
at 23 ±2° C (73.4±3.6°F) throughout the 
humidification procedure. Condition the loaded 
desiccator with the covers on and stoppers in place 
at least 12 hours before use. Use a fresh charge of 
salt slurry for each test. 

9. S6.2.5 is revised to read as follows: 

SB. 2. 5 Procedure. 

(a) With TEGME: Except as provided by 
S6.2.5(b), pour 150 ± 5 ml of the brake fluid into an 
open corrosion test jar. Place the jar into a desic- 
cator. Prepare in the same manner a duplicate test 
fluid sample and two duplicate specimens of the 
SAE TEGME referee material (150 ±5 ml of 
TEGME in each jar). The water content of the 
SAE TEGME fluid is adjusted to 0.50 ±0.05 per- 
cent by weight at the start of the test in accordance 
with S7:2. Place these samples in the dessicators in 
the 50°C (122°F) controlled oven and replace desic- 
cator covers. At intervals, during oven humidifica- 
tion, remove the rubber stopper in the top of each 
desiccator containing SAE TEGME fluid. Using a 
long needled hypodermic syringe, take a sample of 
not more than 2 ml from each jar and determine its 
water content. Remove no more than 10 ml of fluid 
from each SAE TEGME sample during the 
humidification procedure. When the water content 
of the SAE fluid reaches 3.70 ± 0.05 percent by 
weight (average of the duplicates), remove the two 
test fluid specimens from their desiccators and 
promptly cap each jar tightly. Allow the sealed jars 
to cool for 60-90 minutes at 23±5°C (73.4 ±9°F). 
Measure the water contents of the test fluid 
specimens in accordance with S7.2 and determine 
their ERBP's in accordance with S6.1. If the two 
ERBP's agree within 4°C (8°F), average them to 
determine the wet ERBP: otherwise repeat and 
average the four individual ERBP's as the wet 
ERBP of the brake fluid. 

(b) With RM-1: Until October 26, 1986, a 
manufacturer may use either TEGME or SAE 
RM-1 CompatibiHty Fluid. See S6. Pour 100 ±1 ml 
of the brake fluid into a corrosion test jar. Promptly 
place the jar into a desiccator. Prepare duplicate 



test sample, and two duplicate specimens of the SAE 
RM-1 Compatibililty Fluid. Adjust water content of 
the SAE RM-1 fluid to 0.50 ±0.05 percent by weight 
at the start of the test in accordance with S7.2. At in- 
tervals remove the rubber stopper in the top of each 
desiccator containing SAE RM-1 fluid. Using a long 
needled hypodermic syringe, take a sample of not 
more than, 2 ml from each jar and determine its 
water content. Remove no more than 10 ml of fluid 
from each SAE RM-1 sample during the humidifica- 
tion procedure. When the water content of the RM-1 
fluid reaches 3.50 ±0.05 percent by weight (average 
of the duplicates), remove the two test fluid 
specimens from their desiccators and promptly cap 
each jar tightly. Measure the water contente of the 
test fluid specimens in accordance with S7.2 and 
determine their ERBP's in accordance with S6.1 
through S6.1.5. If the two ERPB's agree within 4°C. 
(8°F.), average them to determine the wet ERBP; 
otherwise repeat and average the four individual 
ERBP's as the wet ERBP of the brake fluid.) 

10. S6.5.4.1 is revised to read as follows: 

56.5.4.1 Materials. 

(a) Except as provided in 86. 5. 4. 1(b), SAE 
RM-66-03 Compatibility Fluid, as described in 
Appendix A of SAE Standard J1703, November 
1983, "Motor Vehicle Brake Fluid," November 
1983. 

(b) Until October 26, 1986, a manufacturer may 
use either SAE RM-66-03, or SAE RM-1 Com- 
patibility Fluid as described in Appendix A of SAE 
Standard J1703b, "Motor Vehicle Brake Fluid," 
July 1970. See S6. 

11. Paragraph S6.5.4.2 is revised to read as 
follows: 

56. 5.4.2 Procedure. 

(a) With RM-66-03: Except as provided in 
S6.5.4.2(b), mix 30 ±1 ml of the brake fluid with 
30±1 ml of SAE RM-66-03 Compatibility Fluid in a 
boiling point flask (S6. 1.2(a)). Determine the initial 
ERBP of the mixture by applying heat to the flask 
so that the fluid is refluxing in 10 + 2 minutes at a 
rate of excess of 1 drop per second, but not more 
than 5 drops per second. Note the maximum fluid 
temperature observed during the first minute after 
the fluid begins refluxing at a rate in excess of 1 
drop per second. Over the next 15 + 1 minutes, 
adjust and maintain the reflux rate at 1 to 2 drops 
per second. Maintain this rate for an additional 2 
minutes, recording the average value of four 
temperature readings taken at 30-second intervals 
as the final ERBP. 



PART 571; S 106-PRE 60 



(b) With RM-1: Until October 26, 1986, a 
manufacturer may use either RM-66-03, or SAE 
RM-1 Compatibility Fluid as described in Appendix 
A of SAE Standard J1703b, "Motor Vehicle Brake 
Fluid, " July 1970. See S6. 

(c) Thermometer and barometic corrections are 
not required. 

12. S6.10.1 is revised to read as follows: 

56.10.1 Summary of the procedure. 

(a) With RM-66-03: Except as provided in 
S6. 10. 1(b), brake fluid is mixed with an equal 
volume of SAE RM-66-03 Compatibility Fluid, 
then tested in the same way as for water tolerance 
(S6.9) except that the bubble flow time is not 
measured. This test is an indication of the com- 
patibility of the test fluid with other motor vehicle 
brake fluids at both high and low temperatures. 

(b) With RM-1: Until October 26, 1986, a manufac- 
turer may use either RM-66-03, or SAE RM-1 Com- 
patibility Fluid as described in Appendix A of SAE 
Standard J1703b,"Motor Vehicle Brake Fluid," July 
1970. See S6. This test is an indication of the com- 
patibility of the test fluid with other motor vehicle 
brake fluids at both high and low temperatures. 

13. Paragraph S6. 10.. 2(e) is revised to read as 
follows: 

56.10.2 Apparatus and materials. 

* * * « 3tC * 

(e) Except as provided in S6. 10.2(f), SAE 
RM-66-03 Compatibility Fluid. As described in Ap- 
pendix A of SAE Standard J1703, November 1983, 
"Motor Vehicle Brake Fluid," November 1983. 

(f) Until October 26, 1986, a manufacturer may use 
either RM-66-03, or SAE RM-1 Compatibility Fluid as 
described in Appendix A of SAE Standard J1703b, 
"Motor Vehicle Brake Fluid," July 1970. See S6. 

14. Paragraph S6.10.3(a) is revised to read as 
follows: 

56.10.3 Procedure. 

(a) At low temperature. 

(1) With RM-66-03: Except as provided in 
S6. 10.3(a)(2), mix 50 ±0.5 ml of brake fluid with 
50 ±0.5 ml of SAE RM-66-03 Compatibility Fluid. 
Pour this mixture into a centrifuge tube and stop- 
per with a clean dry cork. Place tube in the cold 
chamber maintained at minus 40±2°C (minus 
40°±3.6°F). After 24 ±2 hours, remove tube, 
quickly wipe with a clean lint-free cloth saturated 
with ethanol (isopropanol when testing DOT 5 
fluids) or acetone. Examine the test specimen for 
evidence of sludging, sedimentation, or crystalliza- 



tion. DOT 3 and DOT 4 test fluids shall also be 
examined for stratification. 

(2) With RM-1. Until October 26, 1986, a 
manufacturer may use either RM-66-03, or SAE 
RM-1 Compatibility Fluid as described in Appendix 
A of SAE Standard J1703b, "Motor Vehicle Brake 
Fluid," July 1970. See S6. 

****** 

15. S6.13.1 is revised to read as follows: 

56.13.1 Summary of the procedure. Brake fluid 
is stroked under controlled conditions at an 
elevated temperature in a simulated motor vehicle 
hydraulic braking system consisting of three slave 
wheel cylinders and an actuating master cylinder 
connected by steel tubing. Referee standard parts 
are used. All parts are carefully cleaned, 
examined, and certain measurements made im- 
mediately prior to assembly for test. During the 
test, temperature, rate of pressure rise, maximum 
pressure, and rate of stroking are specified and 
controlled. The system is examined periodically 
during stroking to assure that excessive leakage of 
fluid is not occurring. Afterwards, the system is 
torn down. Metal parts and SBR cups are examin- 
ed and remeasured. The brake fluid and any resul- 
tant sludge and debris are collected, examined, and 
tested. 

16. S6.13.2 is revised to read as follows: 

56.13.2 Apparatus and equipment. 

Either the drum and shoe type of stroking 
apparatus (see Figure 1 of SAE Standard J 1703b) 
except using only three sets of drum and shoe 
assemblies, or the stroking fixture type apparatus 
as shown in Figure 2 of SAE J1703, November 
1983, with the components arranged as shown in 
Figure 1 of SAE J1703, November 1983. The 
following components are required. 

(a) Brake assemblies. With the drum and shoe 
apparatus: three drum and shoe assembly units 
(SAE RM-29a) consisting of three forward brake 
shoes and three reverse brake shoes with linings 
and three front wheel brake drum assemblies with 
assembly component parts. With stroking fixture 
type apparatus: three fixture units including 
appropriate adapter mounting plates to hold brake 
wheel cylinder assemblies. 

****** 

(c) Heated air bath cabinet. An insulated cabinet 
or oven having sufficient capacity to house the 
three mounted brake assemblies or stroking fix- 
ture assemblies, master cylinder, and necessary 
connections. A thermostatically controlled heating 



PART 571; S 106-PRE 61 



system is required to maintain a temperature of 
70°±5°C (158°±9°F) or 120°±5°C (248°±9°F). 
Heaters shall be shielded to prevent direct radia- 
tion to wheel or master cylinder. 

****** 

(f) Wheel cylinder (WC) assemblies (SAE RM- 
Ua). Three unused cast iron housing straight bore 
hydraulic brake WC assemblies having diameters 
of approximately 28 mm (I'/j, inch) for each test. 
Pistons shall be made from unanodized SAE AA 
2024 aluminum alloy. 

****** 

17. Paragraph S6. 13.3(a) is revised to read as 
followfs: 

56.13.3 Materials. 

(a) Standard SBP brake cups. Six standard SAE 
SBR wheel cylinder test cups, one primary test 
cup, and one secondary MC test cup, all as de- 
scribed in S7.6, for each test. 

****** 

18. Paragraph S6. 13.4(c) is revised to read as 
follows: 

56.13.4 Preparation of test apparatus. 

****** 

(c) Assembly and adjustment of test apparatus. 

When using a shoe and drum type apparatus, 
adjust the brake shoe toe clearances to 1.0 ±0.1 
mm (0.040 ± 0.004 inch). Fill the system with brake 
fluid, bleeding all wheel cylinders and the pressure 
gage to remove entrapped air. Operate the actuator 
manually to apply a pressure greater than the re- 
quired operating pressure and inspect the system 
for leaks. Adjust the actuator and /or pressure relief 
valve to obtain a pressure of 70 ± 3.5 kg./sq. cm. 
(1,000 ± 50 psi). A smooth pressure-stroke pattern 
is required when using a shoe and drum type ap- 
paratus. The pressure is relatively low during the 
first part of the stroke and then builds up smoothly 
to the maximum stroking pressure at the end of the 
stroke, to permit the primary cup to pass the com- 
pensating hole at a relatively low pressure. Using 
stroking fixtures, adjust the actuator and/ or 
pressure relief valve to obtain a pressure of 70 ± 3.5 
kg./sq. cm. (1,000 ±50 psi). 

Adjust the stroking rate to 1,000 ±100 strokes 
per hour. Record the fluid level in the master 
cylinder standpipe. 

19. S6. 13.6(b) and S6. 13.6(c) are revised to read 
as follows: 

S6.13.6 Calculation. 



(b) Calculate the average decrease in hardness 
of the seven cups tested, as well as the individual 
values (see S5. 1.13(c)). 

(c) Calculate the increases in base diameters of 
the eight cups (see S5. 1.13(e)). 

20. The first sentence of Paragraph S6. 13.6(d) is 
revised to read as follows: 

(d) Calculate the lip diameter interference set 
for each of the eight cups by the following formula 
and average the eight values (see S5. 1.13(f)). 

****** 

21. S7.2 is revised to read as follows: 

S7.2 Water content of motor vehicle brake fluids. 
Use analytical methods based on ASTM Dl 123-59, 
"Standard Method of Test for Water in Concen- 
trated Engine Antifreezes by the Iodine Reagent 
Method," for determining the water content of 
brake fluids, or other methods of analysis yielding 
comparable results. To be acceptable for use, such 
other method must measure the weight of water 
added to samples of the SAE RM-66-03 and 
TEGME Compatibility Fluids within ± 15 percent 
of the water added for additions up to 0.8 percent 
by weight, and wathin ± 5 percent of the water added 
for additions greater than 0.8 percent by weight 
The SAE RM-66-03 Compatibility Fluid used to 
prepare the samples must have an original ERBP 
of not less than 205°C (401 °F) when tested in ac- 
cordance with S6.1. The SAE TEGME fluid used 
to prepare the samples must have an original 
ERBP of not less than 240°C (464°F) when tested 
in accordance with S6.1. 

Until October 26, 1986, a manufacturer may use 
either RM-66-03 and TEGME or SAE RM-1 Com- 
patibility Fluid. See S6. To be acceptable for use, 
such other method must measure the weight of 
water added to samples of the SAE RM-1 Com- 
patibility Fluid wdthin ±15 percent of the water 
added for additions up to 0.8 percent by weight, and 
within ± 5 percent of the water added for additions 
greater than 0.8 percent by weight. The SAE RM-1 
Compatibility Fluid used to prepare the samples 
must have an original ERBP of not less than 182°C 
(360°F) when tested in accordance with S6.1. 

Issued on April 29, 1986. 

Diane K. Steed 
Administrator 

51 F.R. 16694 
May 6, 1986 



PART 571; S 106-PRE 62 



MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 106 



Brake Hoses 



51. Scope. This standard specifies labeling 
and performance requirements for motor vehicle 
brake hose, brake hose assemblies, and brake 
hose end fittings. 

52. Purpose. The purpose of this standard is 
to reduce deaths and injuries occurring as a 
result of brake system failure from pressure or 
vacuum loss due to hose or hose assembly rup- 
ture. 

53. Application. This standard applies to 
passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, 
trucks, buses, trailers, and motorcycles, and to 
hydraulic, air, and vacuum brake hose, brake 
hose assemblies, and brake hose end fittings for 
use in those vehicles. 

54. Definitions. 

"Armor" means protective material installed 
on a brake hose to increase the resistance of the 
hose or hose assembly to abrasion or impact 
damage. 

"Brake hose" means a flexible conduit, other 
than a vacuum tubing connector, manufactured 
for use in a brake system to transmit or contain 
the fluid pressure or vacuum used to apply force 
to a vehicle's brakes. 

"Brake hose assembly" means a brake hose, 
with or without armor, equipped with end fittings 
for use in a brake system, but does not include 
an air or vacuum assembly prepared by the owner 
or operator of a used vehicle, by his employee, 
or by a repair facility, for installation in that 
used vehicle. 

"Brake hose end fitting" means a coupler, 
other than a clamp, designed for attachment to 
the end of a brake hose. 



"Free length" means the linear measurement 
of hose exposed between the end fittings of a 
hose assembly in a straight position. 

"Permanently attached end fitting" means an 
end fitting that is attached by deformation of the 
fitting about the hose by crimping or swaging, 
or an end fitting that is attached by use of a 
sacrificial sleeve or ferrule that requires replace- 
ment each time a hose assembly is rebuilt. 

"Rupture" means any failure that results in 
separation of a brake hose from its end fitting 
or in leakage. 

"Vacuum tubing connector" means a flexible 
conduit of vacuum that (i) connects metal tub- 
ing to metal tubing in a brake system, (ii) is 
attached without end fittings, and (iii) when in- 
stalled, has an unsupported length less than the 
total length of those portions that cover the metal 
tubing. 

For hose, a dimensional description such as 
"V4-inch hose" refers to the nominal inside diam- 
eter. For tubing, a dimensional description such 
as "V4-inch tubing" refers to the nominal outside 
diameter. 

S5. Requirements— Hydraulic bral<e hose, brake 
hose assemblies, and bralce hose end fittings. 

55.1 Construction. Each hydraulic brake hose 
assembly shall have permanently attached brake 
hose end fittings which are attached by deforma- 
tion of the fitting about the hose by crimping or 
swaging. 

55.2 Labeling. 

S5.2.1 Each hydraulic brake hose shall have 
at least two clearly identifiable stripes of at 
least one-sixteenth of an inch in width, placed 
on opposite sides of the brake hose parallel to 



PART 571; S 106-1 



its longitudinal axis. One stripe may be interrupted 
by the information required by S5.2.2, and the 
other stripe may be interrupted by additional infor- 
mation at the manufacturer's option. However, 
hydraulic brake hose manufactured for use only in 
an assembly whose end fittings prevent its installa- 
tion in a twisted orientation in either side of the 
vehicle, need not meet the requirements of S5.2.1. 

55.2.2 Each hydraulic brake hose shall be la- 
beled, or cut from bulk hose that is labeled, at in- 
tervals of not more than 6 inches, measured from 
the end of one legend to the beginning of the next, 
in block capital letters and numerals at least one- 
eighth of an inch high, with the information listed 
in paragraphs (a) through (e). the information need 
not be present on hose after it has become part of a 
brake hose assembly or after it has been installed 
in a motor vehicle. 

(a) The symbol DOT, constituting a certification 
by the hose manufacturer that the hose conforms 
to all applicable motor vehicle safety standards. 

(b) A designation that identifies the manufac- 
turer of the hose, which shall be filed in writing 
with: Office of Crash Avoidance, Handling and 
Stability Division, National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., 
Washington, D.C. 20590. The marking may consist 
of a designation other than block capital letters 
required by S5.2.2. 

(c) The month, day, and year, or the month and 
year, of manufacture, expressed in numerals. For 
example, 10/1/74 means October 1, 1974. 

(d) [The nominal inside diameter of the hose ex- 
pressed in inches or fractions of inches, or in 
millimeters followed by the abbreviation "mm." 
(50 F.R. 4691-February 1, 1985. Effective: June 
3, 1985)1 

(e) Either "HR" to indicate that the hose is 
regular expansion hydraulic hose or "HL" to in- 
dicate that the hose is low expansion hydraulic 
hose. 

55.2.3 "Reserved" 

55.2.4 Each hydraulic brake hose assembly, 
except those assembled and installed by a vehicle 
manufacturer in vehicles manufactured by him, 
shall be labeled by means of a band around the 
brake hose assembly as specified in this paragraph 
or, at the option of the manufacturer, by means of 



labeling as specified in S5.2.4.1. The band may at 
the manufacturer's option be attached so as to 
move freely along the length of the assembly, as 
long as it is retained by the end fittings. The band 
shall be etched, embossed, or stamped in block 
capitals letters, numerals, or symbols at least one- 
eighth of an inch hight with the following informa- 
tion: 

(a) The symbol DOT constituting certification 
by the hose assembler that the hose assembly 
conforms to all applicable motor vehicle safety 
standards. 

(b) A designation that identifies the manufac- 
turer of the hose assembly, which shall be filed 
in writing with: Office of Vehicle Safety Stand- 
ards, Crash Avoidance Division, National High- 
way Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh 
Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590. The 
designation may consist of block capital letters, 
numerals, or a symbol. 

S5.2.4.1 At least one end fitting of a hydraulic 
brake hose assembly shall be etched, stamped, or 
embossed with a designation at least one-sixteenth 
of an inch high that identifies the manufacturing 
of the hose assembly and is filed in accordance 
with S5.2.4(b). 

S5.3 Test requirements. A hydraulic brake 
hose assembly or appropriate part thereof shall be 
capable of meeting any of the requirements set 
forth under this heading, when tested under the 
conditions of Sll and the applicable procedures of 
S6. However, a particular hose assembly or 
appropriate part thereof need not meet further 
requirements after having been subjected to and 
having met the constriction requirement (S5.3.1) 
and any one of the requirements specified in S5.3.2 
through S5.3.11. 

55.3.1 Constriction. Except for that part of 
an end fitting which does not contain hose, every 
inside diameter of any section of a hydraulic 
brake hose assembly shall be not less than 64 
percent of the nominal inside diameter of the 
brake hose. 

55.3.2 Expansion and burst strength. The 

maximum expansion of a hydraulic brake hose 
assembly at 1,000 psi and 1,500 psi shall not 
exceed the values specified in Table I (S6.1). 



(Rev. 2/1/85) 



PART 571; S 106-2 



The hydraulic brake hose assembly shall then 
withstand water pressure of 4,000 psi for 2 min- 
utes without rupture, and shall not rupture at 
less than 5,000 psi (S6.2). 

55.3.3 Whip resistance. A hydraulic brake 
hose assembly shall not rupture when run con- 
tinuously on a flexing machine for 35 hours 
(S6.3). 

55.3.4 Tensile strength. A hydraulic brake 
hose assembly shall withstand a pull of 325 
pounds without separation of the hose from its 
end fittings (S6.4). 



S5.3.5 Water absorption and burst strength. 

A hydraulic brake hose assembly, after immer- 
sion in water for 70 hours (S6.5), shall with- 
stand water pressure of 4,000 psi for 2 minutes, 
and then shall not rupture at less than 5,000 psi 
(S6.2). 



S5.3.6 Water absorption and tensile strength. A 

hydraulic brake hose assembly, after immersion in 
water for 70 hours (S6.5), shall withstand a pull of 
325 pounds without separation of the hose from its 
end fittings {S6.4). 



S5.3.7 Water absorption and whip resistance. A 

hydraulic brake hose assembly, after immersion in 
water for 70 hours (S6.5), shall not rupture when 
run continuously on a flexing machine for 35 hours 
(S6.3). 



55.3.8 Low-temperature resistance. A 

hydraulic brake hose conditioned at minus 40°F for 
70 hours shall not show cracks visible without 
magnification when bent around a cylinder as 
specified in S6.6 (S6.6) 

55.3.9 Brake fluid compatibility, constriction, and 
burst strength. (Except for brake hose assemblies 
designed for use with mineral or petroleum-based 
brake fluids, a hydraulic brake hose assembly shall 
meet the constriction requirement of S5.3.1 after 
having been subjected to a temperature of 200°F 
for 70 hours while filled with SAE RM-66-03 Com- 
patibility Fluid, as described in Appendix A of 
SAE Stnadard J1703, November 1983, Motor 
Vehicle Brake Fluid, November 1983 (S6.7). It 
shall then withstand water pressure of 4,000 psi 
for 2 minutes and thereafter shall not rupture at 
less than 5,000 psi (S6.2). (SAE RM-1 Compatibility 
Fluid, as described in Appendix A of SAE Stan- 
dard J 1703b, Motor Vheicle Brake Fluid, July 
1970, may be used in place of SAE RM-66-03 until 
November 3, 1986. (51 F.R. 16694— May 6. 1986. 
Effective: May 6, 1986)1 

5.3.10 Ozone resistance. A hydraulic brake 
hose shall not show cracks visible under 7-power 
magnification after exposure to ozone for 70 
hours at 140°F (S6.8). 

S5.3.11 End fitting corrosion resistance. After 
24 hours of exposure to salt spray, a hydraulic 
brake hose end fitting shall show no base metal 
corrosion on the end fitting surface except where 
crimping or the application of labeling information 
has caused displacement of the protective coating 
(S6.9). 



Table 1— Maximum Expansion of Free Length Brake Hose, cc/ft. 



Hydraulic Brake Hose, 
inside diameter 



Test Pressure 



1,000 psi 



Regular 

Expansion 

Hose 



Low 

Expansion 

Hose 



Regular 

Expansion 

Hose 



1,500 psi 



Low 

Expansion 

Hose 



% inch or 3 mm or less 
^16 inch or 4 to 5 mm 


0.66 
0.86 
1.04 


0.33 
0.55 
0.82 


0.79 
1.02 
1.30 


0.42 
0.72 


'A inch or 16 mm more 


1.17 







(Rev. 5/6/86) 



PART 571; S 106-3 



S6. Test procedures— Hydraulic brake hose, 
brake hose assemblies, and brake hose end fittings. 

S6.1 Expansion test. 

56.1.1 Apparatus. Utilize a test apparatus 
(as shx)wn in Figure 1) which consists of: 

(a) Source for required fluid pressure; 

(b) Test fluid of water without any additives 
and free of gases. 

(c) Reservoir for test fluid; 

(d) Pressure gauges; 

(e) Brake hose end fittings in which to mount 
the hose vertically; and 

(f) Graduated burette with 0.05 cc increments. 

56.1.2 Preparation. 

(a) Measure the free length of the hose as- 
sembly. 

(b) Mount the hose so that it is in a vertical 
straight position without tension when pressure 
is applied. 

(c) Fill the hose with test fluid and bleed all 
gases from the system. 

(d) Close the valve to the burette and apply 
1,500 psi for 10 seconds; then release pressure. 

56.1.3 Calculation of expansion at 1,000 and 
1,500 psi. 

(a) Adjust the fluid level in the burette to 
zero. 

(b) Close the valve to the burette, apply pres- 
sure at the rate of 15,000 psi per minute, and 
seal 1,000 psi in the hose (1,500 psi in second 
series). 

(c) After 3 seconds open the valve to the 
burette for 10 seconds and allow the fluid in the 
expanded hose to rise into the burette. 

(d) Repeat the procedure in steps (b) and 
(c) twice. Measure the amount of test fluid 
which has accumulated in the burette as a result 
of the three applications of pressure. 

(e) Calculate the volumetric expansion per 
foot by dividing the total accumulated test fluid 
by 3 and further dividing by the free length of 
the hose in feet. 



GRADUATED 
BURETTE 



f^ 



V? 



(ADJUSTABLE 
FOR HOSF 
LENGTH 



ALVE ^f C 



-HOSE ASSEMBLY 



SUPPLY 
PRESSURE 



Fig, 1 Expansion Test Apparatus 



56.2 Burst strength test. 

(a) Connect the brake hose to a pressure sys- 
tem and fill it completely with water, allowing 
all gases to escape. 

(b) Apply water pressure of 4,000 psi at a 
rate of 15,000 psi per minute. 

(c) After 2 minutes at 4,000 psi, increase the 
pressure at the rate of 15,000 psi per minute 
until the pressure exceeds 5,000 psi. 

56.3 Whip resistance test. 

S6.3.1 Apparatus. Utilize test apparatus that 
is dynamically balanced and includes: 

(a) A movable header consisting of a hori- 
zontal bar equipped with capped end fittings 
and mounted through bearings at each end to 
points 4 inches from the center of two vertically 
rotating disks whose edges are in the same 
vertical plane; 

(b) An adjustable stationary header parallel 
to the movable header in the same horizontal 
plane as the centers of the disks, and fitted with 
open end fittings; 

(c) An elapsed time indicator; and 

(d) A source of water pressure connected to 
the open end fittings. 



PART 571; S 106-4 



56.3.2 Preparation. 

(a) Remove all external appendages including, 
but not limited to, hose armor, chafing collars, 
mounting brackets, date bands and spring guards. 

(b) Measure the hose free length. 

(c) Mount the hose in the whip test machine in- 
troducing slack as specified in Table II for the size 
hose tested, measuring the projected length parallel 
to the axis of the rotating disks. The manufacturer 
may, at his option, adapt the fitting attachment 
points to permit mounting hose assemblies equipped 
with angled or other special fittings in the same 
orientation as hose assemblies equipped with 
straight fittings. 

56.3.3 Operation. 

(a) Apply 235 psi water pressure and bleed all 
gases from the system. 

(b) Drive the movable head at 800 rpm. 

56.4 Tensiie strength test. Utilize a tension 
testing machine conforming to the requirements of 
the methods of Verification of Testing Machines 
(1964 American Society for Testing and Materials, 
Designation E4), and provided with a recording 
device to give the total pull in pounds. 

56.4.1 Preparation. Mount the hose assembly 
to ensure straight, evenly distributed machine pull. 

56.4.2 Operation. Apply tension at a rate of 1 
inch per minute travel of the moving head until 
separation occurs. 

56.5 Water absorption sequence tests. 

S6.5.1 Preparation. Prepare three hose assem- 
blies as follows: 

(a) Remove 1!^ inches of hose cover, if any, 
from the center of the hose assemblies without 



injury to any reinforcing material or elongation of 
the hose assemblies. 

(b) Measure the free length of the hose 
assemblies. 

S6.5.2 Immersion and sequence testing. 

(a) Immerse the hose assemblies in distilled 
water for 70 hours. 

(b) Thirty minutes after removal from water, 
conduct tests S6.2, S6.3, and S6.4, using a dif- 
ferent hose for each sequence. 

56.6 Low temperature resistance test. 

56.6.1 Preparation. 

(a) Remove hose armor, if any, and condition a 
hose in a straight position in air at minus 40 °F for 
70 hours. 

(b) Condition a cylinder in air at minus 40°F for 
70 hours, using a cylinder of 2V2 inches in diameter 
for test of hose less than %-inch or 3 mm 3 inches 
for tests of 5^-inch or 3 mm hose, 3V2 inches for 
tests of yi6-inch and 'A-inch hose or of 4 to 6 mm 
hose, and 4 inches for tests of hose greater than V4 
inch or 6 mm in diameter. 

56.6.2 Flexibility testing. Bend the conditioned 
hose 180 degrees around the conditioned cylinder 
at a steady rate in a period of 3 to 5 seconds. Ex- 
amine without magnification for cracks. 

56.7 Brake fluid compatibility test. 

S6.7.1 Preparation. 

[(a) Attach a hose assembly below a 1-pint reser- 
voir filled with 100 ml of SAE RM-66-03 Com- 
patibility Fluid as shown in Figure 2. (SAE RM-1 
Compatibility Fluid, as described in Appendix A of 
SAE Standard J1703b, Motor Vehicle Brake Fluid, 
July 1970, may be used in place of SAE RM-66-03 
until October 26, 1986. (51 F.R. 16694— May 6, 1986. 
Effective: May 6, 1986)| 



Table II— Hose Lengths 



Free length between end 
fittings, inches 



%-inch or 3 

mm hose or 

less 



Slack, inches 



more than Vs-inch 
or 3 mm hose 



8 to 15V2, inclusive 


1.750 




10 to 15V2, inclusive 





1.000 


Over 15V2 to 19 inclusive 


1.250 





Over 19 to 24, inclusive 


0.750 





(Rev. 5/6/86) 



PART 571; S 106-5 



(b) Fill the hose assembly with brake fluid, 
seal the lower end, and place the test assembly 
in an oven in a vertical position. 

6.7.2 Oven treatment. 

(a) Condition the hose assembly at 200° F 
for 70 hours. 

(b) Cool the hose assembly at room tempera- 
ture for 30 minutes. 

(c) Drain the brake hose assembly, immedi- 
ately determine that every inside diameter of 
any section of the hose assembly, except for that 
part of an end fitting which does not contain 
hose, is not less than 64 percent of the nominal 
inside diameter of the hose, and conduct the 
test specified in S6.2. 

56.8 Ozone resistance test. Utilize a cylinder 
with a diameter eight times the nominal outside 
diameter of the brake hose excluding armor. 

56.8.1 Preparation. After removing any ar- 
mor, bind a hydraulic brake hose 360° around 
the cylinder. In the case of hose shorter than 
the circumference of the cylinder, bend the hose 
so that as much of its length as possible is in con- 
tact. 

56.8.2 Exposure to ozone. 

(a) Condition the hose on the cylinder in air 
at room temperature for 24 hours. 

(b) Immediately thereafter, condition the 
hose on the cylinder for 70 hours in an exposure 
chamber having an ambient air temperature of 
104° F during the test and containing air mixed 
with ozone in the proportion of 50 parts of 
ozone per 100 million parts of air by volume. 

(c) Examine the hose for cracks under 7- 
power magnification, ignoring areas immediately 
adjacent to or within the area covered by binding. 

56.9 End fitting corrosion resistance test. Uti- 
lize the apparatus described in ASTM Bl 17-64, 
"Salt Spray (Fog) Testing." 

S6.9.1 Construction. Construct the salt spray 
chamber so that: 

(a) The construction material does not affect 
the corrosiveness of the fog; 



CAP 



TUBE NUT OR OTHER 
APPROPRIATE FITTING 



CAP OR PLUG 




SEAL OPENING WITH CAP 
AFTER BLEEDING HOSE 



— 1 PINT RESERVOIR 



STEEL TUBING 

(BRAZED INTO RESERVOIR) 



Fig 2-Brake Fluid Compatability Apparatus 

(b) The hose assembly is supported or sus- 
pended 30° from the vertical and parallel to the 
principal direction of the horizontal flow of fog 
through the chamber; 

(c) The hose assembly does not contact any 
metallic material or any material capable of 
acting as a wick; 

(d) Condensation which falls from the as- 
sembly does not return to the solution reservoir 
for respraying; 

(e) Condensation from any source does not 
fall on the brake hose assemblies or the solution 
collectors; and 

(f) Spray from the nozzles is not directed 
onto the hose assembly. 

S6.9.2 Preparation. 

(a) Plug each end of the hose assembly. 

(b) Mix a salt solution five parts by weight 
of sodium chloride to 95 parts of distilled water, 
using sodium chloride substantially free of nickel 
and copper, and containing on a dry basis not 
more than 0.1 percent of sodium iodide and not 
more than 0.3 percent total impurities. Ensure 
that the solution is free of suspended solids be- 
fore the solution is atomized. 

(c) After atomization at 95° F ensure that 
the collected solution is in the pH range of 6.5 
to 7.2. Make the pH measurements at 77° F. 



PART 571; S 106-6 



(d) Maintain a compressed air supply to the 
nozzle or nozzles free of oil and dirt and between 10 
to 25 psi. 

S6.9.3 Operation. Subject the brake hose 
assembly to the salt spray continuously for 24 
hours. 

(a) Regulate the mixture so that each collector 
will collect from 1 to 2 ml of solution per hour for 
each 80 square centimeters of horizontal collecting 
area. 

(b) Maintain exposure zone temperature at 95° 
F. 

(c) Upon completion, remove the salt deposit 
from the surface of the hoses by washing gently 
or dipping in clean running water not warmer 
than 100° F and then drying immediately. 

S7. Requirements— Air brake hose, bralce hose 
assemblies, and brake hose end fittings. 

S7.1 Construction. Each air brake hose 
assembly shall be equipped with permanently 
attached brake hose end fittings or reusable brake 
hose end fittings. Each air brake hose intended for 
use with reusable end fittings shall conform to the 
dimensional requirements specified in Table III. 

7.2.1 Hose. Each air brake hose shall be 
labeled, or cut from bulk hose that is labeled, 
at intervals of not more than 6 inches, measured 



from the end of one legend to the beginning of the 
next, in block capital letters and numerals at least 
one-eighth of an inch high, with the information 
listed in paragraphs (a) through (e). The informa- 
tion need not be present on hose after it has 
become part of a brake hose assembly or after it 
has been installed in a motor vehicle. 

(a) The symbol DOT, constituting a certification 
by the hose manufacturer that the hose conforms 
to all applicable motor vehicle safety standards. 

(b) A designation that identifies the manufac- 
turer of the hose, which shall be filed in writing 
with: Office of Vehicle Safety Standards, Crash 
Avoidance Division, National Highway Traffic 
Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., 
Washington, D.C. 20590. The designation may 
consist of block capital letters, numerals, or a 
symbol. 

(c) The month, day, and year, or the month and 
year, of manufacture, expressed in numerals. For 
example, 10/1/74 means October 1, 1974. 

(d) [The nominal inside diameter of the hose 
expressed in inches or fractions of inches or in 
millimeters, or the nominal outside diameter of 
plastic tubing expressed in inches or fractions of 
inches or in millimeters followed by the letters OD. 
The abbreviation "mm" shall follow hose sizes that 
are expressed in millimeters. (Examples of inside 
diameter: Vs, ^ (^ SP in the case of V2 inch special 
air brake hose), 4 mm, 6 mm. Examples of outside 
diameter: 'A OD, 12 mm OD.) (50 F.R. 4691- 
February 1, 1985. Effective: June 3, 1985)1. 



Table III— Air Brake Hose Dimensions for Reusable Assemblies 



Size, 
inches 


Inside Diameter 
Tolerance, inches 


TYPE I 
O.D., inches 
Min Max 


TYPE II 
O.D., inches 
Min Max 


'/le 


+ 0.026 
-0.000 


0.472 


0.510 


0.500 


0.539 


V4 


+ 0.031 
-0.000 


0.535 


0.573 


0.562 


0.602 


%6 


+ 0.031 
-0.000 


0.598 


0.636 


0.656 


0.695 


% 


±0.023 


0.719 


0.781 


0.719 


0.781 


"^2 


+ 0.031 
-0.000 


0.714 


0.760 


0.742 


0.789 


V2 


+ 0.039 
-0.000 


0.808 


0.854 


0.898 


0.945 


% 


+ 0.042 
-0.000 


0.933 


0.979 


1.054 


1.101 


V2 special 


±0.031 


0.844 


0.906 


0.844 


0.906 



(Rev. 2/1/85) 



PART 571; S 106-7 



(e)) The letter "A" shall indicate intended use in 
air brake systems. In the case of a hose intended 
for use in a reusable assembly, "AI" or "AH" shall 
indicate Type I or Type II dimensional character- 
istics of the hose as described in Table III. 

S7.2.2 End fittings. Except for an end fitting 
that is attached by deformation of the fitting about 
a hose by crimping or swaging, at least one compo- 
nent of each air brake hose fittings shall be etched, 
embossed, or stamped in block capital letters and 
numerals at least one-sixteenth of an inch high 
with the following information: 

(a) The symbol DOT, constituting a certification 
by the manufacturer of that component that the 
component conforms to all applicable motor vehi- 
cle safety standards. 

(b) A designation that identifies the manufac- 
turer of that component of the fitting, which shall 
be filed in writing with: Office of Vehicle Safety 
Standards, Crash Avoidance Division, National 
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 
Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590. 
The designation may consist of block capital let- 
ters, numerals, or a symbol. 

(c) The letter "A" shall indicate intended use in 
air brake systems. In the case of an end fitting in- 
tended for use in a reusable assembly, "AI" or 
"AH" shall indicate use with Type I or Type II 
hose, respectively. 

(d) [The nominal inside diameter of the hose to 
which the fitting is properly attached expressed in 
inches or fractions of inches or in millimeters, or 
the outside diameter of the plastic tubing to which 
the fitting is properly attached expressed in inches 
or fractions of inches or in millimeters followed by 
the letters OD (See examples in S7.2.1(d)). The ab- 
breviations "mm" shall follow hose sizes that are 
expressed in millimeters. (50 F.R. 4691— February 
1, 1985. Effective: June 3, 1985)). 

S7.2.3 Assemblies. Each air brake hose 
assembly made with end fittings that are attached 
by crimping or swaging, except those assembled 
and installed by a vehicle manufacturer in vehicles 
manufactured by him, shall be labeled by means of 
a band around the brake hose assembly as specified 
in this paragraph or, at the option of the manufac- 
turer, by means of labeling as specified in S7.2.3.1. 
The band may at the manufacturer's option be at- 



tached so as to move freely along the length of the 
assembly, as long as it is retained by the end fit- 
tings. The band shall be etched, embossed, or 
stamped in block capital letters, numerals, or sym- 
bols at least one-eighth of an inch high, with the 
following information: 

(a) The symbol DOT, constituting certification 
by the hose assembler that the hose assembly 
conforms to all applicable motor vehicle safety 
standards. 

(b) A designation that identifies the manufac- 
turer of the hose assembly, which shall be filed in 
writing with: Office of Vehicle Safety Standards, 
Crash Avoidance Division, National Highway Traf- 
fic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, 
S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590. The designation 
may consist of block capital letters, numerals, or a 
symbol. 

S7.2.3.1 At least one end fitting of an air brake 
hose assembly made with end fittings that are at- 
tached by crimping or swaging shall be etched, 
stamped, or embossed vnth a designation at least 
one-sixteenth of an inch high that identifies the 
manufacturer of the hose assembly and is filed in 
accordance with S7.2.3(b). 

S7.3 Test requirements. Each air brake hose 
assembly or appropriate part thereof shall be 
capable of meeting any of the requirements set 
forth under this heading, when tested under the 
conditions of Sll and the applicable procedures of 
S8. However, a particular hose assembly or ap- 
propriate part thereof need not meet further 
requirements after having met the constriction re- 
quirement (S7.3.1) and then having been subjected 
to any one of the requirements specified in S7.3.2 
through S7.3.13. 

57.3.1 Constriction. Except for that part of an 
end fitting which does not contain hose, every in- 
side diameter of any section of an air brake hose 
assembly shall be not less than 66 percent of the 
nominal inside diameter of the brake hose. 

57.3.2 High temperature resistance. An air 

brake hose shall not show external or internal 
cracks, charring, or disintegration visible without 
magnification when straightened after being bent 
for 70 hours at 212° F over a cylinder having the 
radius specified in Table IV for the size of hose 
tested (S8.1). 



(Rev. 2/1/65) 



PART 571; S 106-8 



57.3.3 Low temperature resistance. The outer 
cover of an air brake hose shall not show cracks 
visible without magnification as a result of condi- 
tioning at minus 40° F for 70 hours when bent 
around a cylinder having the radius specified in 
Table IV for the size of hose tested (S8.2). 

57.3.4 Oil resistance. After immersion in 
ASTM No. 3 oil for 70 hours at 212° F the volume 
of a specimen prepared from the inner tube and 
cover of an air brake hose shall not increase more 
than 100 percent (S8.3). 

57.3.5 Ozone resistance. The outer cover of an 
air brake hose shall not show cracks visible under 
7-power magnification after exposure to ozone for 
70 hours at 104° F (S8.4). 

57.3.6 Length change. An airbrake hose shall 
not contract in length more than 7 percent nor 
elongate more than 5 percent when subjected to air 
pressure of 200 psi (S8.5). "(other than a coiled 
nylon tube for use in an assembly that meets the 
requirements of § 393.45 of this title)" followed the 
phrase "An air brake hose." 

§ 7.3.7 Adhesion. "Except for hose reinforced 
by wire," an airbrake hose shall withstand a tensile 
force of 8 pounds per inch of length before separa- 
tion of adjacent layers (S8.6). 

57.3.8 Air pressure. An air brake hose 
assembly shall contain air pressure of 200 psi for 5 
minutes without loss of more than 5 psi (S8.7). 

57.3.9 Burst strength. An air brake hose 
assembly shall not rupture when exposed to 
hydrostatic pressure of 800 psi (S8.8). 

57.3.10 Tenslie strength. [An air brake hose 
assembly (other than a coiled nylon tube assem- 
bly which meets the requirements of § 393.45 of 



this title) designed for use between frame and axle 
or between a towed and a towing vehicle shall 
withstand, without separation of the hose from its 
end fittings, a pull of 250 pounds if it is V4 inch or 
less or 6 mm or less in nominal internal diameter, 
or a pull of 325 pounds if it is larger than Va, inch or 
6 mm in nominal internal diameter. An air brake 
hose assembly designed for use in any other ap- 
plication shall withstand, without separation of the 
hose from its end fitting, a pull of 50 pounds if it is 
V4 inch or 6 mm or less in nominal internal 
diameter, 150 pounds if it is % or V2 inch or 10 mm 
to 12 mm in nominal internal diameter, or 325 
pounds if it is larger than V2 inch or 12 mm in 
nominal internal diameter (S8.9). (50 F.R. 
4691-February 1, 1985. Effective: June 3, 1985)] 

57.3.11 Water absorption and tensile strength. 

[After immersion in distilled water for 70 hours 
(S8.10), an air brake hose assembly (other than a 
coiled tube assembly which meets the require- 
ments of § 393.45 of this title) designed for use be- 
tween frame and axle or between a towed and a 
towing vehicle shall withstand without separation 
of the hose from its end fittings a pull of 250 
pounds if it is V4 inch or 6 mm or less in nominal in- 
ternal diameter, or a pull of 325 pounds if it is 
larger than V4 inch or 6 mm in nominal internal 
diameter. After immersion in distilled water for 70 
hours (S8.10), an air brake hose assembly designed 
for use in any other application shall withstand 
without separation of the hose from its end fitting 
a pull of 50 pounds if it is V4 inch or 6 mm or less in 
nominal internal diameter, 150 pounds if it is % or 
V2 inch or 10 to 12 mm in nominal internal 
diameter, or 325 pounds if it is larger than V2 inch 
or 12 mm in nominal internal diameter (S8.9). (50 
F.R. 4691-February 1, 1985. Effective: June 3, 
1985)1 

57.3.12 Zinc chloride resistance. The outer 
cover of an air brake hose shall not show cracks 
visible under 7-power magnification after immer- 
sion in a 50-percent zinc chloride aqueous solution 
for 200 hours (S8. 11). 



Table IV-Air Brake Hose Diameters and Test Cylinder Radii 



INominal hose diameter in. ' 


% 


%6 


V4 


yi6 


?4, ■%2 


'/16, V2 


% 


mm. * 


3 


4,5 


6 


8 


10 


12 


16 


Radius of test cylinder 
in inches 


IV2 


2 


2V2 


3 


3V2 


4 


4V2 



* These sizes are listed to provide test values for brake hoses manufactured in these sizes. They do not represent conversions. (50 
F.R. 4691-February 1, 1985. Effective: June 3. 1985)1. 

(Rev. 2/1/85) PART 571; S 106-9 



S7.3.13 End fitting corrosion resistance. After 
24 hours of exposure to spray, air brake hose 
end fittings shall show no base metal corrosion 
on the end fitting surface except where crimping 
or the application of label information causes 
a displacement of the protective coating. 

S8. Test procedures— Air brake hose, bralce 
hose assemblies, and brake hose end fittings. 

58.1 High temperature resistance test. 

(a) Utilize a cylinder having the radius indi- 
cated in Table IV for the size of hose tested. 

(b) Bind the hose around the cylinder and 
condition it in an air oven for 70 hours at 212°F. 

(c) Cool the hose to room temperature, re- 
move it from the cylinder and straighten it. 

(d) Without magnification, examine the hose 
externally and cut the hose lengthwise and 
examine the inner tube. 

58.2 Low temperature resistance test. 

(a) Utilize a cylinder having the radius indi- 
cated in Table IV for the size of hose tested. 

(b) Condition the cylinder and the brake hose, 
in a straight position, in a cold box at minus 
40° F for 70 hours. 

(c) With the hose and cylinder at minus 40° 
F, bend the hose 180 degrees around the cylinder 
at a steady rate in a period of 3 to 5 seconds. 

58.3 Oil resistance test. Utilize three test 
specimens and average the results. 

58.3.1 Preparation. Fashion a test specimen 
by cutting a rectangular block 2 inches long and 
not less than one-third of an inch in width, hav- 
ing a thickness of not more than one-sixteenth 
inch, from the brake hose and buff the specimen 
on both faces to ensure smooth surfaces. 

58.3.2 Measurement. 

(a) Weigh each specimen to the nearest milli- 
gram in air (Wl) and in distilled water (W2) 
at room temperature. If wetting is necessary 
to remove air bubbles, dip the specimen in ace- 
tone and thoroughly rinse it with distilled water. 

(b) Immerse each specimen in ASTM No. 3 
oil for 70 hours at 212° F and then cool in 



ASTM No. 3 oil at room temperature for 30 to 
60 minutes. 

(c) Dip the specimen quickly in acetone and 
blot it lightly with filter paper. 

(d) Weigh each specimen in a tared weighing 
bottle (W3) and in distilled water (W4) within 
five minutes of removal from the cooling liquid. 

(e) Calculate the percentage increase in vol- 
ume as follows: 



Percent of increase = 



(W3-W4)-(Wi-W 2) 

(W1-W2) 



x 100 



58.4 Ozone resistance test. Conduct the test 
specified in S6.8 using air brake hose. 

58.5 Length change test. 

(a) Position a test hose in a straight, hori- 
zontal position, and apply air pressure of 10 psi 
thereto. 

(b) Measure the hose to determine original 
free length. 

(c) Without releasing the 10 psi, raise the air 
pressure to the test hose to 200 psi. 

(d) Measure the hose under 200 psi to deter- 
mine final free length. An elongation or con- 
traction is an increase or decrease respectively, 
in the final free length from the original free 
length of the hose. 

58.6 Adhesion test. 

S8.6.1 Apparatus. [A tension testing machine 
that is power-driven and that applies a constant 
rate of extension is used for measuring the force 
required to separate the layers of the test specimen. 
The apparatus is constructed so that: 

(a) The recording head includes a freely ro- 
tating form with an outside diameter substan- 
tially the same as the inside diameter of the hose 
specimen to be placed on it. 

(b) The freely rotating form is mounted so 
that its axis of rotation is in the plane of the 
ply being separated from the specimen and so 
that the applied force is perpendicular to the 
tangent of the specimen circumference at the 
line of separation. 

(c) The rate of travel of the power-actuated 
grip is a uniform one inch per minute and the 
capacity of the machine is such that maximum 
applied tension during the test is not more than 
85 percent nor less than 15 percent of the ma- 
chine's rated capacity. 



(Rev. 12/31/85) 



PART 571; S 106-10 



(d) The machine produces a chart with separa- 
tion as one coordinate and appHed tension as the 
other. (51 F.R. 603— January 7, 1986, Effective: July 
6, 1986)1 

58.6.2 Preparation. 

(a) Cut a test specimen of 1 inch or more in 
length from the hose to be tested and cut the layer 
to be tested of that test specimen longitudinally 
along its entire length to the level of contact with 
the adjacent layer. 

(b) Peel the layer to be tested from the adjacent 
layer to create a flap large enough to permit 
attachment of the power-actuated clamp of the 
apparatus. 

(c) Mount the test specimen on the freely 
rotating form with the separated layer attached to 
the power-actuated clamp. 

58.6.3 Operation. Reserved 

58.6.4 Calculations. 

(a) [The adhesion value shall be the minimum 
force recorded on the chart excluding that portion 
of the chart which corresponds to the initial and 
final 20 percent portion along the displacement 
axis. (51 F.R. 603— January 7, 1986. Effective: July 6, 
1986)]. 

(b) Express the force in pounds per inch of 
length. 



S8.7 Air pressure test. 

(a) Connect the air brake hose assembly to a 
source of air pressure. 

(b) Apply 200 psi air pressure to the hose and 
seal the hose from the source of air pressure. 

(c) After 5 minutes, determine the air pressure 
remaining in the test specimen. 



S8.8 Burst strength test. 

(a) Utilize an air brake hose assembly. 

(b) Fill the hose assembly with water, allowing 
all gases to escape. Apply water pressure at a 
uniform rate of increase of approximately 1,000 psi 
per minute until the hose ruptures. 



S8.9 Tensile strength test. Utilize a tension 
testing machine conforming to the requirements of 
the Methods of Verification of Testing Machines 
(1964 American Society for Testing and Materials, 
Designation E4), and provided with a recording 
device to register total pull in pounds. 

(a) Attach an air brake hose assembly to the 
testing machine to permit straight, even, machine- 
pull on the hose. 

(b) Apply tension at a rate of 1 inch per minute 
travel of the moving head until separation occurs. 



Table V— Vacuum Brake Hose Test Requirements 





Hose inside diameter* 


High temperature 


Low temperature 




Bend 


Deforma- 






resistance 


resistance 






tion- 


Inches 


Millimeters 


Hose 


Radius of 


Hose 


Radius of 


Hose 


Maximum 


collapsed 






leng^th, 


cylinder, 


length. 


cylinder 


length. 


collapse of 


inside 






inches 


inches 


inches 


inches 


inches 


outside 

diameter, 

inches 


diameter 
(dimension 
D), inches 


'^2 


5 


8 


IV2 


171/2 


3 


7 


'544 


%4 


'A 


6 


9 


IV2 


171/2 


3 


8 


?4b 


K. 


%2 




9 


1% 


19 


31/2 


9 


'%4 


%4 


'%i 


8 


9 


1% 


19 


3V2 


11 


'%4 


%< 


% 


10 


10 


1% 


19 


31/2 


12 


%2 


%2 


%. 




11 


2 


201/2 


4 


14 


'%4 


%4 


'%2 




11 


2 


201/2 


4 


14 


'%4 


%. 


% 


12 


11 


2 


201/2 


4 


16 


3^2 


^ 


% 


16 


12 


2V4 


22 


41/2 


22 


%2 


%2 


% 




14 


2V2 


24 


5 


28 


%2 


%, 


1.0 




16 


3 v. 


281/2 


61/2 


36 


\z 


V« 



* These sizes are listed to provide test values for brake hoses in these sizes. They do not represent conversions. 

(Rev. 12/1/85) PART 571; S 106-11 



58.10 Water absorption and tensile strength 
test. Immerse an air brake hose assembly in 
distilled water at room temperature for 70 hours. 
Thirty minutes after removal from the water, con- 
duct the test specified in S8.9. 

58.11 Zinc chloride resistance test. Immerse 
an air brake hose in a 50-percent zinc chloride 
aqueous solution at room temperature for 200 
hours. Remove it from the solution and examine it 
under 7-power magnification for cracks. 

58.12 End fitting corrosion resistance test. Con- 
duct the test specified in S6.9 using an air brake 
hose assembly. 

S9. Requirements— vacuum bralce hose, bral(e 
hose assemblies, and brake hose end fittings. 

9.1 Labeling. 

S9.1.1 Hose. Each vacuum brake hose shall be 
labeled, or cut from bulk hose that is labeled, at in- 
tervals of not more than 6 inches, measured from 
the end of one legend to the beginning of the next, 
in block capital letters and numerals at least one- 
eighth of an inch high, with the information listed 
in paragraphs (a) through (e). The information 
need not be present on hose after it has become 
part of a brake hose assembly or after it has been 
installed in a motor vehicle. 

(a) The symbol DOT, constituting a certification 
by the hose manufacturer that the hose conforms 
to all applicable motor vehicle safety standards. 

(b) A designation that identifies the manufac- 
turer of the hose, which shall be filed in writing 
with: Office of Vehicle Safety Standards, Crash 
Avoidance Division, National Highway Traffic 
Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street S.W., 
Washington, D.C. 20590. The designation may 
consist of block capital letters, numerals, or a sym- 
bol. 

(c) The month, day, and year, or the month and 
year, of manufacture, expressed in numerals. For 
example, 10/1/74 means October 1, 1974. 

(d) [The nominal inside diameter of the hose ex- 
pressed in inches or fractions of inches or in 
millimeters, or the nominal outside diameter of 
plastic tubing expressed in inches or fractions of 
inches or in millimeters followed by the letters OD. 



The abbreviation "mm" shall follow hose sizes that 
are expressed in millimeters. (Example of inside 
diameter: %2. ^4, 4 mm. Example of outside 
diameter: V4 OD, 12 mm OD.) (50 F.R. 4691- 
February 1, 1985. Effective: June 3, 1985)1 

(e) The letters "VL" or "VH" shall indicate that 
the component is a light-duty vacuum brake hose 
or heavy-duty vacuum brake hose, respectively. 

59.1.2 End Fittings. Except for an end fitting 
that is attached by heat shrinking or by in- 
terference fit with plastic vacuum hose or that is 
attached by deformation of the fitting about a hose 
by crimping or swaging, at least one component of 
each vacuum brake hose fitting shall be etched, em- 
bossed, or stamped in block capital letters and 
numerals at least one-sixteenth of an inch high 
with the following information: 

(a) The symbol DOT, constituting a certification 
by the manufacturer of that component that the 
component conforms to all applicable motor vehi- 
cle safety standards. 

(b) A designation that identifies the manufac- 
turer of that component of the fitting, which shall 
be filed in writing with: Office of Vehicle Safety 
Standards, Crash Avoidance Division, National 
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 
Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590. 
The designation may consist of block capital let- 
ters, numerals, or a symbol. 

(c) The letters "VL" or "VH" shall indicate that 
the end fitting is intended for use in a light-duty or 
heavy-duty vacuum brake system, respectively. 

(d) [The nominal inside diameter of the hose to 
which the fitting is properly attached expressed in 
inches or fractions of inches or in millimeters, or 
the outside diameter of the plastic tubing to which 
the fitting is properly attached expressed in inches 
or fraction of inches or in millimeters followed by 
the letters OD (See examples in S9.1.1 (d)). The ab- 
breviation "mm" shall follow hose sizes that are 
expressed in millimeters. (50 F.R. 4691— February 
1, 1985. Effective: June 3, 1985)1 

59.1.3 Assemblies. Each vacuum brake hose 
assembly made with end fittings that are attached 
by crimping or swaging and each plastic tube 
assembly made with end fittings that are attached 
by heat shrinking or dimensional interference fit, 
except those assembled and installed by a vehicle 
manufacturer in vehicles manufactured by him, 
shall be labeled by means of a band around the 
brake hose assembly as specified in this para- 



(Rev. 2/1 /8S) 



PART 571; S 106-12 



graph or, at the option of the manufacturer, by 
means of labeling as specified in S9. 1.3.1 The band 
may at the manufacturer's option attached so as to 
move freely along the length of the assembly, as 
long as it is retained by the end fittings. The band 
shall be etched, embossed, or stamped, in block 
capital letters and numerals at least one-eighth of 
an inch high, with the following information: 

(a) The symbol DOT, constituting certification 
by the hose assembler that the hose assembly 
conforms to all applicable motor vehicle safety 
standards. 

(b) A designation that identifies the manufac- 
turer of the hose assembly, which shall be filed in 
writing with: Office of Vehicle Safety Standards, 
Crash Avoidance Division, National Highway 
Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, 
S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590. The designation 
may consist of block capital letters, numerals, or a 
symbol. 

S9.1.3.1 At least one end fitting of a vacuum 
brake hose assembly made with end fittings that 
are attached by crimping or swaging, or of a plastic 
tubing assembly made with end fittings that are 
attached by heat shrinking or dimensional 
interference fit shall be etched, stamped, or 
embossed with a designation at least one-sixteenth 
of an inch high that identifies the manufacturer of 
the hose assembly and is filed in accordance with 
S9.1.3(b). 

S9.2 Test requirements. Each vacuum brake 
hose assembly or appropriate part thereof shall be 
capable of meeting any of the requirements set 
forth under this heading, when tested under the 
conditions of Sll and the applicable procedures of 
810. However, a particular hose assembly or 
appropriate part thereof need not meet further 
requirements after having met the constriction 
requirement (S9.2.1) and then having been sub- 
jected to any one of the requirements specified in 
S9.2.2 through S9.2.11. 

S9.2.1 Constriction. Except for that part of 
an end fitting which does not contain hose, every 
inside diameter of any section of a vacuum brake 
hose assembly shall be not less than 75 percent 
of the nominal inside diameter of the hose if for 



heavy duty, or 70 percent of the nominal inside 
diameter of the hose if for light duty. 

59.2.2 High temperature resistance. A vacuum 
brake hose shall not show external or internal 
cracks, charring, or disintegration visible with- 
out magnification when straightened after being 
bent for 70 hours at 212° F over a cylinder 
having the radius specified in Table V for the 
size of hose tested (SlO.l). 

59.2.3 Low temperature resistance. A vacuum 
brake hose shall not show cracks visible without 
magnification after conditioning at minus 40° F 
for 70 hours when bent around a cylinder having 
the radius specified in Table V for the size hose 
Tested (S10.2). 

59.2.4 Ozone resistance. A vacuum brake 
hose shall not show cracks visible under 7-power 
magnification after exposure to ozone for 70 
hours (S10.3). 

59.2.5 Burst strength. A vacuum brake hose 
shall not rupture under hydrostatic pressure of 
350 psi (S10.4). 

59.2.6 Vacuum. The collapse of the outside 
diameter of a vacuum brake hose under internal 
vacuum of 26 inches of Hg for five minutes 
shall not exceed one-sixteenth of an inch (S10.5). 

59.2.7 Bend. The collapse of the outside 
diameter of a vacuum brake hose at the middle 
point of the test length when bent until the ends 
touch shall not exceed the values given in Table 
V for the size of hose tested (S10.6). 

59.2.8 Swell. Following exposure to Refer- 
ence Fuel A, every inside diameter of any sec- 
tion of a vacuum brake hose shall be not less than 
75 percent of the nominal inside of the hose if 
for heavy duty, or 70 percent of the nominal 
inside diameter of the hose if for light duty. 
The vacuum brake hose shall show no leakage 
and there shall be no separation of the inner tube 
from the fabric reinforcement of the hose in a 
vacuum test of 26 inches of Hg for 10 minutes 
(S10.7). 



PART 571; S 106-13 



59.2.9 Adhesion. "Except for hose reinforced 
by wire," a vacuum brake hose shall withstand a 
force of 8 pounds per inch of length before separa- 
tion of adjacent layers (S10.8). 

59.2.10 Deformation. A vacuum brake hose 
shall return to 90 percent of its original outside 
diameter within 60 seconds after five applications 
of force as specified in S10.9, except that a wire- 
reinforced hose need only return to 85 percent of 
its original outside diameter. In the case of heavy- 
duty hose the first application of force shall not ex- 
ceed a peak value of 70 pounds, and the fifth ap- 




peak value of at least 40 pounds. In the case of 
light-duty hose the first application of force shall 
not exceed a peak value of 50 pounds, and the fifth 
application of force shall reach a peak value of at 
least 20 pounds (S10.9). 

S9.2.11 End fitting corrosion resistance. After 
24 hours of exposure to salt spray, vacuum brake 
hose end fittings shall show no base metal corro- 
sion of the end fitting surface except where crimp- 
ing or the application of labeling information has 
caused displacement of the protective coating. 

S10. Test procedures— Vacuum bralte liose, 
bral(e hose assembiies, and bral(e hose and fittings. 

510.1 (High temperature resistance test. Con- 
duct the test specified in S8.1 using vacuum brake 
hose with the cylinder radius specified in Table V 
for the size of hose tested. 

510.2 Low temperature resistance test. Con- 
duct the test specified in S8.2 using vacuum brake 
hose with the cylinder radium specified in Table V 
for the size of hose tested. 

510.3 Ozone resistance test. Conduct the test 
specified in S6.8 using vacuum brake hose. 



Fig. 3 -Bend Test of Vacuum Brake Hose. 



S10.4 Burst strength test. Conduct the test 
specified in S8.8 using vacuum brake hose. 



Table VI 
Dimensions of Test Specimen and Feeler Gage for Deformation Test 



Hose Inside Diameter* 




Specimen Dimensions 




Feeler Gage Dimensions 




(inch) 


Mm. 




(see Fig. J,) 




Width 
(inch) 


Thickness 




D (inch) L (inch) 


(inch) 


[%2 




5 




%4 1 




% 


%4 


y* 




6 




H6 1 




"k 


Vie 


%2 








^6 1 




% 


Vu 


'%2 




8 




%4 1 




%. 


%4 


% 




10 




%2 1 




%6 


%2 


yi6 








%4 1 




V4 


%4 


'%2 








%4 1 




V4 


%4 


Vz 




12 




% 1 




V4 


% 


% 




16 




%2 1 




V4 


%2 


% 








%6 1 




V4 


yi6 


1.0 








Vt 1 




1/4 


'Al 


• These sizes are listed to provide 


test 


values for brake hoses manufactured in 


these sizes. They do 


not represent conversions. (50 


F.R. 4691-February 1, 


1985. Effective: 


June 3, 1985) 








(Rev. 2/1/85) 








PART 571; S 106- 


-14 







S10.5 Vacuum test. Utilize a 12-inch vacuum 
brake hose assembly sealed at one end. 

(a) Measure the hose outside diameter. 

(b) Attach the hose to a source of vacuum 
and subject it to a vacuum of 26 inches of Hg 
for 5 minutes. 

(c) Measure the hose to determine the mini- 
mum outside diameter while the hose is still sub- 
ject to vacuum. 

§10.6 Bend test. 

(a) Bend a vacuum brake hose, of the length 
prescribed in Table V, in the direction of its 
normal curvature until then ends just touch, as 
shown in Figure 3. 

(b) Measure the outside diameter of the speci- 
men at point A before and after bending. 

(c) The difference between the two measure- 
ments is the collapse of the hose outside diameter 
on bending. 

S10.7 Swell test. 

(a) Fill a specimen of vacuum brake hose 12 
inches long with Reference Fuel A as described 
in the Method of Test for Change in Properties 
of Elastomeric Vulcanizers Resulting From Im- 
mersion in Liquids (1964 American Society for 
Testing and Materials Designation D471). 

(b) Maintain reference fuel in the hose under 
atmospheric pressure at room temperature for 
48 hours. 

(c) Remove fuel and determine that every 
inside diameter of any section of the brake hose 
is not less than 75 percent of the nominal inside 
diameter of the hose for heavy-duty hose and 70 
percent of the nominal inside diameter of the 
hose for light-duty hose. 

(d) Subject the hose specimen to a vacuum 
of 26 inches of Hg for 10 minutes. 



S10.8 Adhesion test. Conduct the 
specified in S8.6 using vacuum brake hose. 



test 



Load 






(^ 



Fig 4 Deformed Specimen of Vacuum 
Brake Hose 



510.9 Deformation test. Table VI specifies the 
test specimen dimensions. 

510.9.1 Apparatus. Utilize a compression 
device, equipped to measure force of at least 100 
pounds, and feeler gauges of sufficient length to be 
passed completely through the test specimen. 

51 0.9.2 Operation. 

(a) Position the test specimen longitudinally 
in the compression device with the fabric laps 
not in the line of the applied pressure. 

(b) Apply gradually increasing force to the 
test specimen to compress its inside diameter to 
that specified in Table VI (dimension D of 
Figure 4) for the size of hose tested. 

(c) After 5 seconds release the force and record 
the peak load applied. 

(d) Repeat the procedure four times permitting 
a 10-second recovery period between load applica- 
tions. 

510.10 End fitting corrosion resistance test. 

Conduct the test specified in 86.9 using a vacuum 
brake hose assembly. 

511. Test conditions. Each hose assembly or 
appropriate part thereof shall be able to meet the 
requirements of 85, 87, and S9 under the following 
conditions. 

511.1 The temperature of the testing room is 
75° F. 

511.2 Except for 86.6, 88.2, and 810.2, the test 
samples are stabilized at test room temperature 
prior to testing. 

511.3 The brake hoses and brake hose 
assemblies are at least 24 hours old, and unused. 

512. Notwithstanding any other provision of 
this standard, a brake hose assembly shall meet 
each requirement of this standard, except that 
the assembly may be constructed of brake hose 
which meets every requirement of the standard 
for hose other than the hose labeling requirements 
of 85.2, 87.2, and 89.1, and the assembly may be 
constructed of end fittings which meet every re- 
quirement of the standard for end fittings other 



PART 571; 8 106-15 



than the end fitting labeling requirements of S5.2, 
S7.2, and S9.1. 

S13. Notwithstanding any other provision of 
this standard, a vehicle to which this standard 
applies shall be equipped with brake hose, brake 
hose end fittings, and brake hose assemblies that 
meet each requirement of this standard, with the 
following exceptions: 

(a) The vehicle may be equipped with brake hose 
that meets every requirement of the standard for 
hose other than the hose labeling requirements of 
S5.2, S7.2, and S9.1; 



(b) The vehicle may be equipped with end 
fittings that meet every requirement of the stand- 
ard for end fittings other than the end fitting 
labeling requirements of S5.2, S7.2, and S9.1; 
and 

(c) The vehicle may be equipped with brake 
hose assemblies that meet every requirement of 
the standard for assemblies other than the as- 
sembly labeling requirements of S5.2, S7.2, and 
S9.1. 

38 F.R. 31302 
November 13, 1973 



PART 571; S 106-16 



Eff*ctlv«: January 1, 1961 



MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 107 

Reflecting Surfaces — Passenger Cars, Multipurpose Passenger 
Vehicles, Trucks, and Buses 



51. Purpose and scope. This standard spec- 
ifies reflecting surface requirements for certain 
vehicle components in the driver's field of view. 

52. Application. This standard applies to pas- 
senger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles 
trucks, and buses. 

53. Definitions. "Field of view" means the area 
forward of a lateral vertical plane which is lo- 
cated tangent to the rearmost boundary of the 
SAE 99th percentile eye range contour of SAE 
Recommended Practice J941, November 1965. 
"Specular gloss" means the luminous fractional 
reflectance of a specimen at the specular direc- 
tion. 



S4. Requirements. The specular gloss of the sur- 
face of the materials used for the following 
bright metal components in the driver's field of 
view shall not exceed 40 units when measured 
by the 20° method of ASTM Standard D523-62T, 
June 1962— 

(a) Windshield wiper arms and blades; 

(b) Inside windshield mouldings; 

(c) Horn ring and hub of steering wheel as- 
sembly; and 

(d) Inside rearview mirror frame and mount- 
ing bracket. 

32 F.R. 2411 
February 3, 1967 



PART 571; S 107-1-2 



EffMtiv*: July I, 1971 
(Excapt oi no»»d In th« RuU) 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 108 

Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment — Passenger Cars, Multipurpose 
Passenger Vehicles, Trucks, Buses, Trailers and Motorcycles 
(Docket No. 69-18) 



On January 3, 1970, a proposal to amend Fed- 
eral Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 
(Docket No. 69-18) was published in the Fed- 
eral Register (35 F.R. 106). Comments were re- 
quested on 25 proposed amendments. 

Interested persons have been afforded an op- 
portunity to participate in the rulemaking 
process and their comments have been considered 
in the amendments published today. Except as 
otherwise noted, the amendments are effective 
July 1, 1971. The amendments are discussed be- 
low in the order in which the proposals were 
published. Unless otherwise indicated, there 
were no significant objections to the proposals 
that are being adopted. 

(a) It was proposed that Standard No. 108 be 
extended to include requirements for replacement 
lighting equipment on vehicles manufactured to 
comply with Standard No. 108, and all replace- 
ment sealed beam headlamp units, lamp bulbs, 
and plastic lenses. 

The proposal to include replacement equip- 
ment on vehicles manufactured on or after the 
effective date of the standard (July 1, 1971) has 
been adopted. However, the proposal to include 
all replacement sealed beam headlamp units, 
lamp bulbs, and plastic lenses on vehicles manu- 
factured prior to that date has been deferred 
because of the difficulties involved in retrofitting 
vehicles that were not originally manufactured 
to conform to Standard No. 108. Further study 
is necessary of the problems, leadtime, and costs 



Individual copies of Motor Vehicle Safety Standards 
may be obtained from the National Highway Safety 
Bureau's General Services Division, Room 5111C, Nasslf 
Building, 400 Seventh Street SW., Washington, D.C. 
20590. 



involved in designing and testing replacement 
equipment for older vehicles that meets the 
standards required of motor vehicles manufac- 
tured today. 

(b) The present intermediate side marker de- 
vice requirement covering vehicles 30 feet or 
more in overall length, and 80 inches and more in 
overall width, has been extended to cover ve- 
hicles of lesser width. 

Commenters requested that the overall length 
of a trailer be interpreted to exclude the length 
of the trailer tongue. However, it has been de- 
termined that when the rear of a trailer is 30 
feet or more from the towing vehicle, interme- 
diate side marker devices are warranted, regard- 
less of the length of the trailer tongue. 

(c) SAE Standard J594d, "Reflex Reflectors", 
has replaced J594c as the basic reference for this 
item of lighting equipment. Some com- 
menters felt that Class B reflectors (eliminated 
in J594d) should still be permitted for motor- 
cycles, but the Bureau believes that a motor ve- 
hicle whose conspicuity is already marginal 
should be required to have Class A reflectors. 

(d) Self-canceling turn signal operating units 
wil be required on all vehices less than 80 inches 
in overall width. One commenter requested ex- 
cluding all trucks, truck tractors, and commercial 
vehicles regardless of vehicle width, and several 
commenters requested the elimination of the re- 
quirement for cancellation by steering wheel 
rotation. 

Since the operation of vehicles less than 80 
inches in overall width is similar to that of 
passenger vehicles and other vehicles of lesser 
width are operated by drivers other than pro- 



PART 571; S 108— PRE 1 



Efftctlvt: July 1, 1971 
lExcapt as noted in the Rule) 



fessionals, their exclusion from this requirement 
is not warranted. 

The Bureau is studying automatic cancellation 
by time or distance, or both, but current evidence 
indicates that these methods, given the state of 
the art, are inferior to cancellation by steering 
wheel rotation. 

(e) As proposed, amber has been eliminated 
as an optional color of the stop lamp. 

(f) The minimum candlepower of any sepa- 
rately mounted stoplamp will equal that of a 
Class A turn signal lamp. 

Many commenters requested a longer leadtime 
to comply. The requests have been found rea- 
sonable, and good cause has been shown for an 
eflFective date of January 1, 1973. Other com- 
ments suggested consideration of stop lamp 
candlepower in connection with dual intensity 
signals, allowance for multiple compartment 
lamps, and retention of the present Class B in- 
tensity for motorcycle stop lamps. 

Dual intensity signals have not been proposed, 
and since time is required for development and 
implementation of such a proposal, a requirement 
for increased minimum candlepower in stop 
lamps cannot be deferred. No justification has 
been found for not requiring Class A intensity 
for motorcycle stop lamps. The standard is 
therefore being amended as proposed, with clari- 
fying provisions for multiple compartment stop 
lamps. 

(g) It was proposed that motorcycles should 
be equipped with turn-signal lamps, that there be 
a maximum candlepower limitation on amber 
rear-mounted lamps, and that minimum photo- 
metric output of head and tail lamps at engine 
idle speeds should be specified. 

Several comments objected to the maximimi 
candlepower proposal and the mounting require- 
ments specified in the proposed Tatble IV. Also, 
comments indicated potential problems if mini- 
mimi photometric output were specified, sug- 
gesting instead reference to SAE Recommended 
Practice J392, "Motorcycle and Motor Driven 
Cycle Electrical System Maintenance of Design 
Voltage", December 1969. 

Glare candlepower tests on signal lamps in- 
stalled on the rear of motor vehicles have con- 
sistently indicated that a specification in excess 
of 300 candlepower for both red and amber 



lamps is not desirable. A manufacturer encoun- 
tering problems of exceeding this maximum with 
amber lamps has the option of using red lamps, 
which have a lower minimum required candle- 
power. 

The detection and interpretation of turn signal 
lamps improves as they are mounted farther 
away from the centerline of the vehicle and from 
other lamps. Some motorcycle manufacturers, 
recognizing this fact, have installed the turn 
signal lamps in the ends of the handlebars, ex- 
ceeding the requirements adopted in the amend- 
ment. The mounting requirements for these 
lamps specified in Table IV are considered rea- 
sonable and practicable for motorcycles. 

The standard is being amended as proposed, 
except that minimum photometric output of 
headlamps and taillamps at engine idle speeds is 
not specified. Minimum photometries are cur- 
rently being studied for further rulemaking. 
Since an incorporation by reference to SAE Rec- 
ommended Practice J392 was not proposed, it 
is beyond the scope of this rulemaking to incor- 
porate it in the amendment. 

(h) Aging and weathering requirements for 
plastic materials used for optical parts are speci- 
fied. Although the comments generally sup- 
ported this revision, many requested a more 
realistic test than continuous operation of stop 
and backup lamps in an oven for 1 hour to de- 
termine lens warpage. Accordingly, the amend- 
ment requires a cycle of operation of 10 minutes' 
duration followed by 10 minutes' rest during the 
1 hour test. Comments suggesting extending the 
2-year outdoor exposure test to 3 years and ad- 
ditional oven test details were beyond the scope 
of the proposal, and will be considered in future 
rulemaking actions. 

(i) As proposed, the words "it is recom- 
mended that," "recommendations," or "should 
be" appearing in any referenced and subrefer- 
enced SAE standard shall be read as setting 
forth mandatory requirements, with minor ex- 
ceptions covering certain aspects of school bus 
warning lamps. 

(]) Specific tolerances for mounting lamps 
and reflectors "as far apart as practicable" were 
proposed, but have not been adopted. 



PART 571; S 108— PRE 2 



Effactfve: July 1, 1971 
(Except at noted In the Rule) 



Several comments recommended adopting the 
ISO (International Standards Organization) re- 
quirements that lamps and reflectors be mounted 
within 16 inches of the edge of the Vehicle. 
Others stated that the Bureau did not have the 
authority to establish tolerances. 

Vehicles having lamps located in conformance 
with ISO regulations may create problems of 
distance judgment resulting in driver error. 
Lamps could be mounted in a range from a mini- 
mum of 25 inches apart on small imported pas- 
senger cars to a maximum of 74 inches apart on 
standard domestic cars. 

The location of lamps and reflectors is clearly 
safety related, as it facilitates clearance and dis- 
tance estimation, detection of signals, and 
similar functions. The Bureau therefore has the 
authority to establish horizontal mounting toler- 
ances, analogous to the vertical tolerances that 
have already been established. 

Major changes in lighting requirements may 
result in the rulemaking action proceeding under 
Docket No. 69-19. New requirements such as 
horizontal mounting tolerances need relatively 
long leadtimes. Accordingly, this proposal has 
not been adopted, and the requirement for lamps 
and reflectors is still that they be located "as 
far apart as practicable." 

(k) Lamps and reflectors must meet specified 
visibility angles when mounted on the vehicle. 

Some comments pointed out that when special 
equipment such as mirrors and snow plows is 
mounted on the vehicle visibility and photometric 
test angles may not be met. The amendment 
allows compliance with this requirement by 
means of auxiliary lighting devices. 

Items (1) through (o) represents proposals 
which were adopted: 

(1) The axis of side reflex reflectors for the 
photometric test has been defined. 

(m) The minimum mounting height for re- 
flectors mounted on the rear of truck tractor cabs 
will be 4 inches above the height of the rear tires. 

(n) Combination turn signal and hazard 
warning signal flashers will meet the require- 
ments applicable to each, when tested in sequence. 
Manufacturers of turn signal and hazard warn- 
ing signal flashers have commented that economic 
factors and the current state of the art in manu- 



facturing lamps preclude a quality level that 
would totally eliminate occasional random fail- 
ures. This condition is reflected in the language 
in Standard No. 108 that lighting equipment 
"shall be designed to conform" to the stated re- 
quirements. The SAE recognizes the problem by 
specifying an allowable percentage of failures in 
SAE Standards J590b, "Automotive Turn signal 
Flasher," and J945, "Vehicular Hazard Warning 
Signal Flasher." Such a provision is inappro- 
priate, however, for regulatory purposes. It is 
doubtful that specific failure allowance in a 
standard would correspond with the statutory 
mandate that "No person shall manufacture for 
sale * * * any motor vehicle or item of motor 
vehicle equipment * * * unless it is in con- 
formity with [any applicable] standard". (15 
U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)). From a practical stand- 
point, such a provision would tend to make the 
requirement unenforceable except in extreme 
cases, since failures within a nngle lot are 
statisticallv inconclusive in determining the ex- 
tent of failures in overall production. Therefore 
the sampling provisions of the two SAE Stand- 
ards, originally incorporated by reference in 
Standard No. 108, are expressly omitted from 
the standard in this issuance. The omission 
should not cause a hardship, since the "designed 
to conform" language has been retained. 

(o) SAE" Recommended Practice J565b, 
"Semi-Automatic Headlamp Beam Switching 
Devices", has replaced J565a as the basic refer- 
ence for this item of lighting equipment. 

(p) It was proposed that all vehicles be 
equipped with a turn signal pilot indicator, and 
that those vehicles not equipped to tow trailers 
(i.e. vehicles with a fixed load flasher) be pro- 
vided with a lamp failure indicator. 

If visible to the rider, motorcycle front turn 
signal lamps can serve as the pilot indicator, as 
permitted in SAE Standard J588d, "Turn Signal 
Lamps". 

Many comments objected to the proposal for 
a lamp failure indicator on vehicles 80 inches or 
more in overall width. Heavy-duty flashers used 
on these vehicles are not presently available with 
a failure indicator. However, this type flasher 
is considerably more durable than the fixed-load 
type, used on vehicles of lesser width, which in- 



PART 571; S 108— PRE 3 



Effactlva: July 1, 1971 
(Exc*pt as noted In lh« Rul«l 



dicates a lamp failure, and the continued use of 
present heavy-duty flashers for wider vehicles is 
warranted. Also, vehicles of 80 inches or more 
overall width are generally used commercially, 
and many of them are subject to the regulations 
of the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety of the 
Federal Highway Administration; such vehicles 
are more frequently inspected and failed lamps 
more promptly repaired. For the foregoing rea- 
sons, vehicles of 80 or more inches overall width 
are excluded from the requirement in the 
amended standard for a turn signal lamp failure 
indicator. 

(q) As proposed, on vehicles less than 80 
inches in overall width, license plate lamps and 
side marker lamps must be on when the head- 
lamps are on, and the taillamps, license plate 
lamps, and side marker lamps when the parking 
lamps are on. 

(r) No lamps that are normally steady-burn- 
ing will be allowed to flash automatically for 
signaling purposes, except headlamps and side 
marker lamps. 

Some commenters requested that additional 
lamps be permitted to flash, and some requested 
that flashing headlamps be prohibited. 

With the exception of certain signals such as 
turn signals, hazard warning, and schoolbus 
warning signals, flashing lamps should be re- 
served for emergency and road-maintenance-type 
vehicles. Flashing lamps are otherwise pro- 
hibited in the Uniform Vehicle Code. Any lamp 
may be flashed by the vehicle driver by merely 
turning the standard lamp switch on and off, 
and this standard cannot prohibit such opera- 
tion. However, the definition of "flash" adopted 
in the amendment makes clear that automatic 
flashers for use with steady burning lamps other 
than headlamps and side marker lamps are pro- 
hibited. 

(s) SAE Standard J593c, "Backup Lamps", 
has replaced J592b as the basic reference for 
these lamps. The clarification is made that the 
center of the backup lamp lens is the optical 
center. However, because of the leadtime that 
will be required for manufacturers to alter their 
designs, good cause is considered shown for an 
effective date of January 1, 1973. 

(t) Headlamp mountings will be required to 
meet SAE Recommended Practice J566, "Head- 



amp Mountings". Although some comments sug- 
gested that this was a redundant requirement, it 
has been determined that this set of require- 
ments contains important safety elements such as 
requiring lateral adjustability of motorcycle 
headlamps, adjustability of all headlamps by one 
man with ordinary tools, and that the aim will 
not be disturbed under ordinary conditions of 
service, matters that are not dealt with elsewhere 
in Standard No. 108. 

(u) Turn signal operating units must be 
capable of meeting a durability test of 100,000 
cycles. Most of the comments stated that the 
175,000-cycle durability test proposed for pas- 
senger cars would be diflScult to meet and recom- 
mended that SAE Standard J589a be referenced 
instead of J589. Since J589a includes other 
changes that were not proposed (temperature 
test, durability test cycle rate, and ambient tem- 
perature), it is beyond the scope of this rule- 
making to incorporate it by reference in the 
amended standard. However, a 100,000-cycle 
durability test has been adopted, as specified in 
J589a. 

(v) The mounting requirements for clearance 
lamps have been amended to indicate that de- 
lineating overall vehicle width, rather than ve- 
hicle height, is the primary purpose of these 
lamps, and a clarification has been added that 
clearance lamps on truck tractors may be 
moimted so as to indicate the width of the cab. 

(w) Identification lamps must be mounted as 
high as practicable, and the maximum permis- 
sible spacing between the lamps has been reduced 
from 12 inches to 8 inches. 

Objections to these requirements were received 
primarily because the reduced spacing would 
create mounting problems due to interference 
with functional hardware, such as air condi- 
tioners and door locking mechanisms. The 8- 
inch maximum spacing has been adopted, but 
spacing 6 to 12 inches apart is allowed when 
8-inch maximum spacing is not practicable. 

(x) License plate lamps must illuminate the 
plate from the top or sides only. 

This is a standard practice with domestic ve- 
hicle manufacturers, but not with foreign ones. 
Foreign manufacturers objected because of in- 
adequate leadtime, and the proposal has been 



PART 571: S 108— PRE 4 



adopted with an effective date of January 1, 
1973. 

(y) A maximum mounting height of 72 inches 
is specified for turn signal lamps. 

Objections were received from manufacturers 
of cab-over-engine trucks and of snow removal 
equipment who commented that such a require- 
ment would restrict turn signal placement. 
However, since no exceptions are specified for 
headlamp mounting (24-54 inches), none are 
considered necessary for turn signal lamps (16- 
72 inches) for these vehicles. 

Other comments suggested revisions to the 
standard that went beyond the scope of the pro- 
posal. Those that appear to have merit will be 
considered in future rulemaking actions. 



MmMv*! July 1, 1971 
(Except « nolMl In th* luM 

In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR 
57151, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 
No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Asso- 
ciated Equipment, is amended to read as set forth 
below. 

Effective date: July 1, 1971, except as other- 
wise noted in the text of the rule. 

Issued on October 22, 1970. 

Douglas W. Toms, 

Director, 

National Highway Safety Bureau. 

35 F.R. 16840 
Octobar 31, 1970 



PART 671 ; S 108— PRE 6-6 



Effactlva: January 1, 1971 
(Except as neud in lh» RuUI 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 108 



Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment — Passenger Cars, Multipurpose 
Passenger Vehicles, Trucks, Buses, Trailers and Motorcycles 

(Docket No. 69-18) 



Motor "Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, es- 
tablishing requirements for lamps, reflective de- 
vices, and associated equipment on motor vehicles 
was amended on October 31, 1970 (35 F.R. 
16840). Thereafter, pursuant to 49 CFR 553.35 
(35 F.R. 5119) petitions for reconsideration of 
the amendment vcere filed by Freightliner Corp., 
Ford Motor Co., Japan Automobile Manufac- 
turers Association, Inc., Wagner Electric Corp., 
General Motors Corp., Chrysler Corp., Rohm 
and Haas Co., Motor Coach Industries, Interna- 
tional Harvester Co., and Motorcycle Industry 
Council, Inc. The petitions of Harley-Davidson 
Motor Co., Inc., Kawasaki Motors Corp., White 
Motor Corp., Hackney Bros. Body Co., and a 
supplement to the Japan AMA petition were not 
timely filed, and have been treated as petitions 
for rulemaking pursuant to 49 CFR 553.31. 
However, some of the issues raised in these peti- 
tions are similar to those contained in timely filed 
petitions. 

In response to information contained in 
several of the petitions the standard is being 
amended. The Administrator has declined to 
grant requested relief from other requirements 
of the standard. 

1. Effective date. General Motors, Ford, and 
Chrysler have petitioned for an extension of the 
effective date, stating that compliance is im- 
practicable for 1971 models which, as of July 1, 
1971, have only a short production life before the 
end of the model run. The Bureau has de- 
termined therefore that an effective date later 
than 1 year from issuance of the original amend- 
ment is in the public interest. The effective date 
of the standard is extended to January 1, 1972. 



2. Paragraph Si.1.1.7. This paragraph is be- 
ing amended to clarify that its stop lamp require- 
ment does not apply to passenger cars manufac- 
tured before January 1, 1973, and to correctly 
cite SAE Standard J588d, "Turn Signal 
Lamps," June 1966, as the standard incorporated 
by reference. 

3. Paragraph SiJ.l.li. The amendment inad- 
vertently omitted installation requirements for 
backup lamps. This paragraph is hereby 
amended to correct the omission, and to insure 
that current installation requirements remain in 
effect until January 1, 1973. 

4. Paragraph S4.I.I.I6. Japan AMA and 
Motorcycle Industry Council objected to the 
portion of this paragraph that would require 
motorcycles, as of January 1, 1973, to be 
equipped with turn-signal units designed to com- 
plete a durability test of 100,000 cycles. In 
order to allow time for further industry study 
and comment on this aspect of performance, the 
requirement is withdrawn from the standard. It 
is anticipated, however, that an increased 
durability test cycle for motorcycle turn-signals 
will be proposed in a future rulemaking action. 

5. Paragraph S^.1.2. Ford, Chrysler, and 
Rohm and Haas petitioned for reduction of the 
heat test cycle of the warpage test from 10 to 5 
minutes or, in the alternative for an extension 
of the effective date of this requirement. The 
Traffic Safety Administration has determined 
that the 10-minute cycle is appropriate because 
of the frequency of usage of stop and backup 
lamps. The petitions for reduction of the test 
cycle are therefore denied. However, because of 
the leadtime for development and tooling of new 



PART 671; S 108— PRE 7 



Effactiv*: January 1, 1972 
(Exctpl at noted in Ih* Rul*) 



lamps which may be required, good cause is con- 
sidered shown for postponement of the effective 
date for this requirement until January 1, 1973. 

6. Paragraph SJf.3.1.8 and Table II. General 
Motors, Motor Coach Industries, and Interna- 
tional Harvester objected to the reduction in the 
maximum allowable spacing of identification 
lamps (from 6 to 12 inches, to 6 to 8 inches), 
alleging that there is no safety justification for 
the requirement, and that compliance by July 1, 
1971, is impracticable. It is recognized that 
other approaches to wide-vehicle identification, 
such as minimum spacing between identification 
and clearance lamps, have merit. These ap- 
proaches are being considered and, as deemed 
appropriate, will be incorporated into future 
rulemaking proposals. Accordingly, the peti- 
tions are granted; Table II is amended to rein- 
state the 6 to 12 inch spacing, and S4.3.1.8 is 
deleted. 

7. Paragraph SJ^JtJZ and Tables I and III. 
Wagner Electric petitioned for reconsideration 
of the omission of sampling provisions from 
SAE Standard J590b, "Turn-Signal Units," 
October 1965, and SAE Standard J945, "Ve- 
hicular Hazard Warning Unit," February 1966. 
Letters have also been received inquiring as to 
the number of flashers constituting a sample for 
test and the number of failures allowable for 
compliance. Standard No. 108 was amended 
without notice to omit sampling provisions in 
order to bring the standard into conformity with 
the National TraflSc and Motor Vehicle Safety 
Act of 1966, which requires that all items con- 
form to applicable standards. Therefore the 
safety standards should not specify sampling 
provisions or failure rates. It is the manufac- 
turer's responsibility to institute a test program 
that is suflRcient to legally constitute due care, on 
a continuing basis, to insure that all products 
manufactured after the effective date of a stand- 
ard meet the applicable requirements. However, 
in response to the procedural objection that the 
change is important enough to merit notice and 
opportimity for comment, Wagner's petition is 
granted and paragraph S4.4.2 and Tables I and 
III are being amended to strike the language 
precluding sampling provisions. At the same 
time, this agency is publishing today a notice 
(Docket No. 69-18; Notice 3, 36 F.R. 1913) pro- 



posing omission of sampling provisions as of 
January 1, 1972, the date when this omission 
would otherwise have been effective. 

8. Paragraph 8^.5.6. International Harvester 
asked that the exemption for lamp outage indi- 
cation be extended to vehicles equipped with 
auxiliary lamps or wiring, since these vehicles, 
like vehicles equipped to tow trailers, use variable 
load flashers. However, fixed load flashers pro- 
viding lamp outage indication are available on 
the market for the increased load of an auxiliary 
lamp. The manufacturer can provide the ap- 
propriate flasher with foreknowledge of the in- 
tended end configuration of the vehicle, and In- 
ternational Harvester's petition is therefore 
denied. 

9. Tables II and IV. Freightliner, Interna- 
tional Harvester, and White Motor requested 
that the maximum mounting height allowable for 
turn-signal units, 72 inches, be reconsidered. 
This agency believes that most turn-signal lamps 
are presently mounted at or below the height of 
72 inches, and that no detriment to motor vehicle 
safety would occur if the maximum mounting 
height were increased to 83 inches to allow higher 
mounting of turn-signals on cab-over-engine 
trucks, snow removal equipment, and other ve- 
hicles where a lower height may be imprac- 
ticable. Tables II and IV are being revised ac- 
cordingly. In Table IV the word "rear" was 
inadvertently omitted in that position of Column 
2 establishing location requirements for side re- 
flex reflectors, and has been reinserted. 

10. Table III. Motorcycle Industry Council 
recommended that SAE Standard J584a, "Motor- 
cycle and Motor Driven Cycle Headlamps," 
October 1969, be incorporated by reference rather 
than SAE Standard J584, April 1964. Such an 
amendment is beyond the scope of the original 
rulemaking proposal. Reference of the upgraded 
SAE Standard is being considered for a future 
rulemaking action. The petition is denied. 

In addition, General Motors, Japan AMA, 
Motorcycle Industry Council, Harley-Davidson, 
and Kawasaki objected that the 300 candlepower 
limitation on motorcycle amber rear turn signals 
is unduly restrictive. Motorcycle Industry 
Council, Harley-Davidson, and Kawasaki ob- 
jected to the spacing requirements for motorcycle 



PART 571; S 108— PRE 8 



MacNw: January t, 1*73 
(isc*^ a> iMHd In rii« lul«l 

tnm-signtl lamps. Both of theae matters ar« Effective date: January 1, 1972, except as 

still under reconsideration and will be disposed otherwise noted in the text of the rule. 
of at a later date. Issued on January 28, 1971. 

In consideration of the foregoing, S4.1.1.7, Charles H. Hartman, 

S4.1.1.14, S4.1.1.16, S4.1.2, S4.3.1.8, S4.4.2, Table Acting Administrator, National High- 

I, Table II, Table III and Table IV of Motor way Traffic Safety Administration. 

Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 in 49 CFR 36 F.R. 1896 

57liil are revised. . . . February 3, 1971 



PART 571; S 108— PRE 9-10 



Effcctiv*: January 1, 1972 
(Except as neltd In th* Rul*) 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO MOTOR VEHIQE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 108 

Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment — Passenger Cars, Multipurpose 
Passenger Vehicles, Trucks, Buses, Trailers and Motorcycles 
(Docket No. 69-18) 



This notice amends Motor Vehicle Safety 
Standard No. 108 to delete the 300-candlepower 
limitation on motorcycle amber rear turn signals, 
to adopt an interlamp spacing of 9 inches for 
motorcycle rear turn signal lamps, and to ex- 
tend to January 1, 1973, the effective date by 
which passenger cars and vehicles less than 80 
inches in overall width must be manufactured 
with self-canceling turn-signal units. 

In response to petitions for reconsideration of 
Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 (35 F.R. 
16840), certain amendments to the standard were 
published on February 3, 1971 (36 F.R. 1896). 
Action was deferred on other petitions pending 
further reconsideration. The National Highway 
TraflSc Safety Administration has concluded its 
review of these petitions and is further amend- 
ing Standard No. 108. General Motors, Japan 
Automobile Manufacturers Association, Inc., and 
Kawasaki Motors Corp. objected that the 300- 
candlepower limitation on motorcycle amber rear 
turn signals is unduly restrictive. Since the 
candlepower limitation would not have become 
effective imtil January 1, 1973, and since the 
Administration has not proposed similar restric- 
tions on amber rear turn signals for other motor 
vehicles, these petitions are granted, and S4.1.1.11 
is deleted. The NHTSA will address the overall 
problem of candlepower limitations, along with 
that of rear turn signal color, in a proposal cur- 
rently under formulation. 

Motorcycle Industry Council, Harley-David- 
son, and Kawasaki objected to the spacing re- 
quirements for motorcycle turn signal lamps and 
requested that the spacing recommended by the 
SAE, 9 inches front and rear, be adopted in- 
stead. The Administration has decided to grant 



the petitions insofar as they concern spacing of 
rear turn signals. Petitioners are concerned 
about the durability and injury potential of turn 
signal lamps spaced 12 inches apart av the rear 
of a motorcycle. While it appears true that 
wider spacing of turn signals at the rear create 
a greater likelihood of damage to the units 
should the motorcycle fall, this is not considered 
significant justification for spacing less than 12 
inches. Rather, the crash injury problem ap- 
pears of greater importance. While spacing of 
rear turn signal lamps at 12 inches does not ap- 
pear to present a significant injury threat to 
pedestrians, it may present a hazard to operators 
and passengers when the vehicle is involved in a 
collision or falls over. This agency intends to 
evaluate motorcycle rear turn signal lamp spac- 
ing for injury potential in its motorcycle crash 
injury research program for the current fiscal 
year, and to reinstate the 12-inch requirement if 
such spacing does not appear to present a signifi- 
cant potential hazard. Table IV is hereby 
amended to specify 9 inches as the minimum 
horizontal separation distance for motorcycle 
turn signal lamps at the rear. 

The motorcycle industry has also expressed its 
concern about the durability and injury potential 
of front turn signal lamps spaced 16 inches apart, 
as well as whether the spacing is justified by 
available data. Tests conducted by the Road 
Research Laboratory and SAE provide adequate 
support, not only for the 16-inch spacing at the 
front but also for the 12-inch spacing at the rear. 
Since front turn signal lamps are generally pro- 
tected by handlebars and durability and injury 
potential do not appear to be significant, the 
Administration has decided to retain the 16- 



PART 571; S 108— PRE 11 



N*c(lv«: JoniMiy 1, 1972 
(Ixnpt OS nelad In Hm IuM 

inch spacing for motorcycle front turn signal 
lamps. 

In addition, Citroen has brought to the atten- 
tion of the Administration the fact that its ve- 
hicles exported to the United States are not 
equipped with, and are not currently designed 
to be equipped with, self-canceling turn signals. 
Because of the modifications required in the 
panel control, dashboard, and steering column, 
it avers that it cannot comply until January 1, 
1973, and has petitioned that the effective date 
of S4.1.1.5 be extended . Since virtually all other 
motor vehicle manufacturers presently comply 
with this requirement, the granting of this peti- 
tion would not cause a significant degradation of 
motor vehicle safety, and S4.1.1.5 is amended 
accordingly. 

Finally, the word "red" inadvertently was in- 
cluded in the first sentence of S4.1.1.7 and is 
hereby deleted. 

In consideration of the foregoing, § 571.21 is 
amended as follows : 

1. S4.1.1.5 is amended to read : 

S4.1.1.5 The turn signal operating unit on 
each passenger car, and multipurpose passenger 



vehicle, truck, and bus less than 80 inches in 
overall width manufactured on or after January 
1, 1973, shall be self -canceling by steering wheel 
rotation and capable of cancellation by a 
manuaUy operated control. 

2. In S4.1.1.7 the word "red" appearing be- 
tween "Class A" and "turn signal lamps" is 
deleted. 

3. S4.1.1.11 is deleted, in S4.1.1 the reference 
to "84,1.1.16" is changed to "S4.1.1.15," and 

54.1.1.12, S4.1.1.13, S4.1.1.14, S4.1.1.15, and 
S4.1.1.16 are renumbered S4.1.1.11, S4.1.1.12, 

54.1.1.13, S4.1.1.14, and 84.1.1.15 respectively. 

4. In Table IV, imder Motorcycles Column 3 
for turn signal lamps, the dimension "2 inches" 
for turn signals at or near the rear is changed to 
"9 inches." 

Effective date: January 1, 1972. 

Issued on May 13, 1971. 

Douglas W. Toms, 
Acting Administrator. 

36 F.R. 9069 
May 19, 1971 



PART 671; S 108— PRE 12 



Effcctiv*: January I, 1973 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 108 
Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment — Passenger Cars, Multipurpose 
Passenger Vehicles, Trucks, Buses, Trailers and Motorcycles 
(Docket No. 69-18) 



The purpose of this notice is to amend Motor 
Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 to delete sam- 
pling and failure-rate provisions from the tests 
of turn signal and hazard warning signal flash- 
ers, and to modify performance requirements for 
these items of motor vehicle equipment. 

The notice of proposed rulemaking upon which 
this amendment is based was published in the 
Federal Register on February 3, 1971 (36 F.R. 
1913). Standard No. 108 incorporates by refer- 
ence SAE Standard J590b, "Automotive Turn 
Signal Flasher," October 1965, and SAE Recom- 
mended Practice J945, "Vehicular Hazard Warn- 
ing Signal Flasher," February 1966. Both 
standards specify a test sample size and a per- 
missible failure rate for the items tested, viz., 
that 50 items shall be "submitted for test," that 
20 items shall be chosen from tiie 50, and that "at 
least 17 out of 20 samples" shall meet the require- 
ments. These are the provisions whose deletion 
was proposed. 

Careful consideration has been given to the 
comments received in response to the notice. 
Many industry comments opposed the proposal, 
alleging that substantially total compliance 
would necessitate an increase in unit cost, and 
arguing that the cost increase is not justified by 
the safety benefits to be gained. Concern was 
also expressed as to possible penalties that might 
arise from the occasional failures that are claimed 
by the industry to be unavoidable in items of 
this type. 

As stated in the February 3 notice of proposed 
rulemaking, the NHTSA considers permissible 
failure rates to be contrary to both the letter and 
the intent of the National Traffic and Motor Ve- 
hicle Safety Act. Manufacturers are required 



to use due care to ensure that all their products 
meet the requirements of the standards. The 
assessment of penalties for test failures is not 
automatic, however, but is made after a review 
of all the facts, with a view to determining 
whether due care was used in accordance with 
sound engineering and manufacturing principles. 
The sampling and failure-rate provisions are ac- 
cordingly hereby deleted from the requirements 
in Standard No. 108 for turn signal and hazard 
warning signal flashers. 

The NHTSA has determined that the design 
and production problems associated with the 
manufacture of thermal flashers are such that 
total compliance wifh current performance and 
durability test requirements is not practicable. 
Therefore, modifications have been made in 
starting time, voltage drop, flash rate and per- 
cent current "on" time for performance tests, 
and in the duration and cycle of operation for 
durability tests. For example, the previously 
required performance range of 60 to 120 flashes 
per minute is broadened to 40 to 140 flashes per 
minute, and the percentage of time during a 
flash cycle that flasher contacts are required to be 
engaged, previously a range of 30 percent to 75 
percent, is now 25 percent to 80 percent. The 
durability test for turn signal flashers will be 
continuous for 25 hours, rather than consisting 
of an on-oflf cycle for 200 hours. The durability 
test for hazard warning signal flashers is reduced 
to 12 hours from 36 hours. This agency has con- 
cluded that tlie net effect of these modifications 
is not a lessening of motor vehicle safety, since 
the minimum performance of flashers is substan- 
tially upgraded by requiring compliance of every 
flasher manufactured, rather than of only 17 of 
every 20 tested. 



PART 571; S 108— PRE 13 



Effcdiv*: January 1, 1973 

To implement the deletion of sampling and 
failure-rate provisions and the modification of 
the previous requirements, the NHTSA is 
amending Standard No. 108 to delete existing 
references to SAE Standard J590b and SAK 
Recommended Practice J945, and to adopt a new 
paragraph S4.6, Turn signal flashers; hazard 
war)\hig signal flashers, that incorporates the 
new requirements. 

In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR 
571.21, Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, 
Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equip- 
ment, is amended. . . . 

Effective date: January 1, 1973. Manufac- 
turers commented that the [)roposed effective date 



of January 1, 1972, was impracticable in view 
the necessity to evaluate and adopt new flasher 
and switch designs meeting the requirements. In 
light of the time needed for changes in design 
and preparation for production, the Admini- 
strator has found, for good cause shown, that an 
effective date later than one year from the date 
of issuance is in the public interest. 
Issued on August 20, 1971. 

Charles H. Hartman 
Acting Administrator 

36 F.R. 17343 
August 28, 1971 



PART 571; S 108— PRE 14 



Effective: January 1, 1973 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY SfANDARD NO. 108 

Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment 
(Docket No. 69-18; Notice 6) 



Motor "Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, 
Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated 
Equipment, was amended on August 28, 1971 
(36 F.R. 17343) to revise performance require- 
ments for turn signal and hazard warning signal 
flashers. Thereafter petitions for reconsideration 
of the amendment were filed by Chrysler Cor- 
poration, Ideal Corporation, Signal-Stat Corpor- 
ation, and Stewart-Warner Corporation. This 
notice responds to these petitions. This notice 
also amends Standard No. 108 to allow compli- 
ance with paragraph S4.6 of Standard No. 108a 
(§ 571.108a), at the option of the manufacturer, 
before January 1, 1973. 

In its petition for reconsideration, Chrysler 
noted that "the amendment deletes the sampling 
provision and imposes new, presumably less 
stringent, but unique performance requirements" 
and commented that "while this change was an- 
nounced in principle in prior rulemaking actions, 
the details of the new performance requirements 
were specified for the first time in this amend- 
ment." Claiming that its suppliers have not had 
time to evaluate their ability to comply with the 
new requirements, Chrysler petitioned that the 
amendment be withdrawn and reissued as a 
notice of proposed rulemaking. Sampling and 
failure-rate provisions were initially deleted in a 
rule published October 31, 1970 (35 F.R. 16840), 
which amended Standard No. 108 in various 
ways. Then, in response to objections that the 
action had not been previously the Subject of a 
notice of proposed rulemaking, the action was 
revoked, a new notice of proposed rulemaking 
to that effect was issued on February 3, 1971 
(36 F.R. 1913), and all interested persons were 
given full opportunity to comment. After care- 
ful consideration of the comments received, the 
agency again published a rule on August 28, 



1971 (36 F.R. 17343), which deleted the sampling 
and failure-rate provisions. The rule also re- 
laxed somewhat some of the quantitative levels 
of required performance. Thereafter, in accord- 
ance with the agency procedural rules, petitions 
for reconsideration of the rule were received and 
considered. The NHTSA considers that these 
actions have considerably exceeded the require- 
ments of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 
U.S.C. 553, that notice and opportunity for com- 
ment be provided giving "either the terms or 
substance of the proposed rule or a description 
of the subjects and issues involved," and finds 
that no significant further benefit will be gained 
by reopening the matter for still another round 
of comments. Chrysler's petition is therefore 
denied. 

Stewart-Warner submitted a general petition 
for reconsideration of the amendment, believing 
that "the amendment can allow unsafe conditions 
to come into existence." AVhile it is true that the 
new performance requirements, on a strictly 
quantitative basis, may be viewed as less strin- 
gent than the old, the agency has concluded that 
the net effect of the amendment, considering the 
removal of the permissible failure rate, is not a 
lessening of the safety performance of these 
items. 

Signal-Stat and Ideal petitioned that para- 
graph S4.1.1 be amended to require that all 
lighting equipment designed to conform to 
Standard No. 108 be "manufactured in accord- 
ance with sound engineering, manufacturing, 
and quality control principles." The basis for 
this request, in Signal-Stat's words, is that 
"while it is not possible to assure the durability 
of any single individual flasher, it is possible to 
reasonably produce requirements on a statistical 
basis in mass production," and that "the only 



PART 571; S 108— PRE 15 



EffKtiv*: Jonuary 1, 1973 



feasible and practical 'due care' and production 
means available, dictated by sound quality con- 
trol principles, is to evaluate devices of volume 
on a statistical basis." The NHTSA has gen- 
erally no objection to the above statements, al- 
though they are not necessary or appropriate 
for inclusion in the standard itself. The agency 
does not have any intent of outlawing designs 
such as thermal flashers, that have been previ- 
ously used to satisfy the requirements in ques- 
tion. It also recognizes fully that with high- 
volume, low-cost items of equipment such as 
flashers, sample testing by the manufacturer may 
be the only practicable means of quality control. 
It can further be stated that in the case of such 
items, an occasional failure of NHTSA compli- 
ance tests, representing a very small percentage 
of production, will not necessarily result in a 
determination that there has been a violation of 
the Act. The question in each case is whether 
the manufacturer exercised due care; wherever 
a manufacturer can establish that he has exer- 
cised due care, he will not be in violation of the 
Act. The petitions of Ideal and Signal-Stat are 
therefore denied. 

Ideal has also requested an interpretation that 
it be allowed to manufacture flashers before 
January 1, 1973, that conform to the revised 
requirements. To encourage manufacturers to 
conform at an early date, the NHTSA is amend- 
ing Standard No. 108 to allow compliance with 



paragraph S4.6 of Standard No. 108a 
(§571. 108a), at the option of the manufacturer, 
between January 1, 1972, and January 1, 1973. 

This notice also corrects a paragraph number- 
ing error in both standards. 

In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR 
§571.108, Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 
108, Lamps., Reflective Devices, and Associated 
Equipment, is amended. . . . 

Effective date: January 1, 1972. Because the 
amendments create no additional burden or obli- 
gation, and permit an early implementation of 
revised performance requirements, the Admin- 
istrator has found for good cause shown that an 
effective date earlier than one hundred eighty 
days after issuance of this notice is in the public 
interest. 

This notice is issued under the authority of 
sections 103 and 119 of the National Traffic and 
Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 
1392, 1407) and the delegation of authority from 
the Secretary of Transportation to the National 
Highway Traffic Safety Administrator, 49 CFR 
1.51. 

Issued on December 22, 1971. 

Douglas W. Toms 
Administrator 

36 F.R. 25013 
December 28, 1971 



PART 571; S 108— PRE 16 



EfhcMv*: January 13, 1972 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 108 

Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment 
(Docket No. 69-18; Notice 7) 



The purpose of this notice is to specify a per- 
missible method of certifying replacement light- 
ing equipment for vehicles manufactured on or 
after January 1, 1972, to conform to Federal 
Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, 
Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. 

Section 114 of the National Traffic and Motor 
Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1403) requires 
every manufacturer or distributor of motor ve- 
hicle equipment to "furnish to the distributor 
or dealer at the time of delivery of such . . . 
equipment by such manufacturer or distributor 
the certification that each such . . . item of motor 
vehicle equipment conforms to all applicable 
Federal motor vehicle safety standards . . . 
[S]uch certification may be in the form of a 
label or tag on such item or on the outside of a 
container in which such item is delivered." Thus, 
manufacturers of equipment to which a safety 
standard applies generally certify the equipment 
by labeling either the equipment or its container. 
In the case of Standard No. 109, Neio Pneumatic 
Tires, certification labeling on the items them- 
selves is required by the standard. 

Normally, the certification responsibility of a 
distributor is met by the distributor's delivery 
of the manufacturer's certification statement to 
the dealers to whom he sells. Although no sep- 
arate statement is necessary, the delivery of the 
manufacturer's certification is considered a legal 
act by which the distributor makes the certifica- 
tion required by the statute. 

With the extension of Standard No. 108 to 
items of replacement equipment, some difficulties 
in this scheme may arise where small items are 
not individually packaged. Automotive parts 
distributors commonly sell single items of equip- 
ment "over the counter" to local garagemen, who 
are dealers within the meaning of the Act. If 
these items are not separately packaged and not 



marked with a certification, the distributor must, 
under the Act, certify the items to the dealer. 
Although there is a variety of ways in which the 
distributor can do this, it is probably unrealistic 
to expect a separate certification to be properly 
and consistently made at this level. Manufac- 
turers of lighting equipment have recognized 
the problem, and have suggested that they be 
permitted to certify their equipment by affixing 
the symbol DOT to each item of equipment. 

This request has been found to have merit, and 
S4.7 of Standard No. 108, 49 CFR 571.108, is 
hereby amended to permit manufacturers to 
certify lighting equipment items by placing the 
symbol "DOT" directly on the item, if they 
choose to do so. 

In consideration of the foregoing, S4.7 of 49 
OFR § 571.108, Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 
No. 108, Lam,ps, Reflective Devices, and Asso- 
ciated Equipment, is amended. . . . 

Effective date : January 12, 1972. Because the 
amendment creates no additional burden or obli- 
gation and permits an optional method of com- 
pliance with an existing requirement, the 
Administrator has found for good cause shown 
that an immediate effective date is in the public 
interest. 

This notice is issued under the authority of 
sections 103, 112, 114 and 119 of the National 
Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 
(15 U.S.C. 1392, 1401, 1407) and the delegation 
of authority from the Secretary of Transporta- 
tion to the National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administrator, 49 OFR 1.51. 

Issued on January 6, 1972. 

Douglas W. Toms 
Administrator 

37 F.R. 445 
January 12, 1972 



PART 571; S 108— PRE 17-18 



EffMtiv*: Jonuory 35, 1972 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 108 

Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment 
(Docket No. 69-18; Notice 8) 



This notice amends 49 CFR 571.108 and 
571.108a, Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 
108 and No. 108a, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and 
Associated Equipment, to permit off-center spac- 
ing of identification lamps on vehicles 80 inches 
or more in overall width. 

Utility Trailer Manufacturing Co., has peti- 
tioned for the reinstatement of former require- 
ments for the location of identification lamps. 
Before January 1, 1972, the three-lamp cluster 
was required to be mounted "as close as prac- 
ticable to the vertical centerline." On vehicles 
manufactured on or after that date, the three 
identification lamps must be mounted "one on 
the vertical centerline, and one on each side of 
the vertical centerline." A type of trailer manu- 
factui-ed by Utility mounts a lock on the center- 
line of the trailer with the lock socket at the rear 
header. Typically the header is shallow and does 
not allow room to mount the gasket seal, the 
center lock socket, and an identification lamp all 
"on the vertical centerline." Extensive retooling 
is necessary for compliance, and apparently 
would cause hardship to Utility and other manu- 
facturers of this type of trailer. The Adminis- 
tration believes that permitting the lamp cluster 
to be mounted slightly off center would not com- 



promise motor vehicle safety, and accordingly 
is returning to the original mounting require- 
ment for all vehicles required to have Identifica- 
tion lamps. 

In consideration of the foregoing, the specifi- 
cations for "Identification Lamps" in Table II, 
Location of Required Equipment, 49 CFR 
§ 571.108, and 49 CFR § 571.108a, are revised. . . . 

Effective date: January 25, 1972. Because the 
amendments create no additional burden or obli- 
gation, the Administrator finds for good cause 
shown that an immediate effective date is in the 
public interest. 

This notice is issued under the authority of 
sections 103 and 119 of the National Traffic and 
Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 
1392, 1407) and the delegation of authority from 
the Secretary of Transportation to the National 
Highway Traffic Safety Administrator, 49 CFR 
1.51. 

Issued on January 19, 1972. 

Douglas W. Toms 
Administrator 

37F.R. 1107 
January 25, 1972 



PART 571; S 108— PRE 19-20 



EffMtiv*: S«pl«mb«r 1, 1973 
January 1 , 1 973 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 108 

Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment 
(Docket No. 72-4; NoHce 2) 



This notice amends 49 CFR §571.108 and 
§ 571.108a, Motor Vehicle Safety Standard Nos. 
108 and 108a, Lamps^ Reflective Devices, and 
Associated Equipment, to revise the test method 
for reflex reflectors. 

On April 8, 1972, the National Highway TrafBc 
Safety Administration proposed (37 F.R. 7107) 
that the applicable SAE standard for reflex re- 
flectors incorporated by reference in Table I and 
Table III of Standards No. 108 and 108a be 
SAE Standard J594e, "Reflex Reflectors," March 
1970, to replace J594d, March 1967. All com- 
ments received were in favor of the proposal and 
the standards are being amended accordingly. 
The effect of the amendment is to permit photo- 
metric testing at a range around a test point if 
speculiar reflection is encountered at the test 
point itself. The amendment does not impose a 
new performance requirement but allows a more 
realistic method of testing than J594d, which 
prohibited testing at other than the specified test 
points, and which had the effect of causing a 
technical noncompliance if there were specular 
reflection at any test point. 

Paragraph S4.3.1.2 has been incorporated into 
J594e and is being deleted from the text of 
Standard No. 108a. This paragraph specifies 
that, for purposes of photometric testing, the 



axis of the side reflex reflectors shall be per- 
pendicular (o a vertical plane through the longi- 
tudinal axis of the vehicle. 

In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR 
§571.108 and § 571.108a, Motor Vehicle Safety 
Standards 108 and 108a, are revised .... 

Effective date: Standard No. 108: Sep. 1, 1972; 
Standard No. 108a : January 1, 1973. Because the 
amendments create no additional burden and 
modify a test procedure currently in effect, it is 
found for good cause shown that an effective 
date earlier than one himdred eighty days after 
issuance is in the public interest. 

This notice is issued under the authority of 
sections 103 and 119 of the National TraflBc and 
Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 
1392, 1407) and the delegation of authority from 
the Secretary of Transportation to the National 
Highway Traffic Safety Administrator, 49 CFR 
1.51. 

Issued on July 28, 1972. 

Douglas W. Toms 
Administrator 

37 F.ft. 15514 
August 3, 1972 



PART 571; S 10&— PRE 21-22 



EffMtiv*: S«pt*mb«r 19, 1973 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 108 

Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment 
(Docket No. 69-18; Notice 11) 



This notice amends 49 CFR Part 571, by re- 
voking Section 571.108a, Motor Vehicle Safety 
Standard No. 108a, Lamps, Reflective Devices, 
and Associated Equipment and deleting a con- 
forming amendment to Standard No. 108, in 
accordance with a decision of the U.S. Court of 
Appeals. 

Standard No. 108a was established on Decem- 
ber 2, 1971 (36 F.R. 22909), to clarify require- 
ments for turn signal and hazard warning signal 
flashers effective January 1, 1973. These require- 
ments were established by an amendment pub- 
lished on August 28, 1971 (36 F.R. 13743). The 
amendment deleted sampling and failure rate 
provisions from the tests for these items of motor 
vehicle equipment, and modified the performance 
requirements. 

Pursuant to section 105(a) (1), of the National 
Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 
(15 use 1394(a) (1)), Wagner Electric Corpor- 
ation petitioned for review of the August 28, 
1971 order in the United States Court of Appeals 
for the Third Circuit. On August 29, 1972, the 
court granted the petition, set aside the order 
and remanded the matter to the National High- 
way Safety Administration for new rulemaking 
proceedings consistent with the court's views. 



(Wagner Electric Corporation v. Volpe, No. 
71-1976 (3d Cir. 1972)) 

By this notice, the NHTSA deletes from the 
Code of Federal Regulations the amendment set 
aside by the Court's order. The deleted provi- 
sion essentially constituted the version of the 
standard that was to become effective January 1, 
1973, (Standard No. 108a) along with paragraph 
S4.1.1.16 of Standard No. 108, which allowed 
manufacturers to conform to the new require- 
ments before that date. 

In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR 
Part 571 is amended .... 

Effective daie : This notice reflects the order of 
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, 
whose mandate was issued September 19, 1972, 
and is effective as of that date. 

This notice is issued imder the authority of 
sections 103 and 119 of the National Traffic and 
Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 
1392, 1407) and the delegation of authority at 
49 CFR 1.51. 

Issued on September 28, 1972. 

Douglas W. Toms 
Administrator 

37 F.R. 20695 
October 3, 1972 



PART 571; S 108— PRE 23-24 



EffKtIv*: January 1, 1973 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 108 

Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment 
(Docket No. 71-21; Notice 3) 



This notice amends 49 CFR 571.108, Motor 
Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Re- 
flective Devices, and Associated Equipment, to 
modify the method by which conformity of cer- 
tain lamps to photometric requirements is deter- 
mined. A notice of proposed rulemaking on this 
subject was published on November 30, 1971 (36 
F.R. 22763). 

Standard No. 108 requires that tail lamps, 
stop lamps, parking lamps, and turn signal 
lamps meet minimum photometric candlepower 
requirements at up to 27 individual test points. 
If a lamp fails to meet the minimum requirement 
at any test point, the lamp does not conform to 
Standard No. 108 even though it may exceed the 
specified minimum at all other test points. 

As noted in the November 30, 1971 proposal, 
this requirement appeared imnecessarily severe, 
since deviances at individual test points are gen- 
erally not great enough to be discernible to the 
human eye. The method proposed and adopted 
sets up seven groups of test points, as shown in 
Figure 1, each group containing from three to 
five test points. The groups include requirements 
for devices with one, two, or three separately 
lighted compartments, and multiple lamps used 
in an array to perform a function at a single 
design location. The minimum candlepower re- 
quirement for any single group is the sum of the 
minimum candlepower specified in the applicable 
SAE standards for individual test points within 
the group. Therefore, there will be no failure 
to conform to Standard No. 108 as long as the 
sum of the candlepower measured at all test 
points within a group equals or exceeds the re- 
quired minimum figure for that group. The 
amendment will not have a significant effect on 
motor vehicle safety and is designed to set up a 



more realistic and cost effective method of deter- 
mining compliance with photometric require- 
ments. 

Two aspects of the proposal are not adopted 
in the amendment. The proposal would have set 
a floor of 60 per cent on the amount by which the 
measured candlepower at a single test point could 
fail to reach the required minimimi for that test 
point. The same rationale governing the overall 
proposal dictated that the floor not be adopted: 
as long as the sum of the test points within a 
group meets the overall minimum for the group, 
the difference in illumination at any discrete test 
point is unlikely to be great enough to be dis- 
cernible. 

Secondly, the proposal would have required 
that clearance, side marker, identification, and 
parking lamps have minimum candlepower equiv- 
alent to tail lamps. This proposal has not been 
adopted. Comments indicated that the increase 
in candlepower would be so significantly greater 
as to cause a glare problem. The group test con- 
cept has been adopted for parking lamps, but not 
for clearance, side marker, identification lamps, 
which retain minimum candlepower for all test 
points. 

In addition, a deferred effective date has been 
adopted for increased grouped candlepower re- 
quirements applicable to tail, stop and turn signal 
lamps with two or three lighted compartments, 
and to lamp arrangements where two or three 
lamps are used to perform a single function in a 
single design location. These requirements have 
been made effective September 1, 1974, in order 
to provide sufficient leadtime for redesign and 
retooling. In the interim, begin nin g January 1, 
1973, such lamps or lamp arrangements may meet 
the grouped requirements applicable to single 



PART 571; S 108— PRE 26 



Effactiv*: January 1, 1973 



compartment and single stop and turn signal 
lamps. 

It was also proposed that minimum candle- 
power requirements be specified for tail lamps, 
stop lamps and turn signal lamps, measured at a 
45-degree angle where any SAE Standard in- 
corporated by reference required visibility of the 
lamps at a 45-degree angle. Objections were 
raised that the proposed values were too high 
and that there was no safety benefit in requiring 
them. The NHTSA, on the basis of its analysis 
of cost benefit factors, has not adopted the pro- 
posal. 

The amendment does not adopt the proposal 
that both red and yellow rear turn signal lamps 
have the same maximimi candlepower limitation. 
The subject of the color of rear turn signal lamps 
will be addressed in a forthcoming notice, in 
Docket No. 69-19. 

The SAE standard applicable to parking lamps 
in Table III has been changed to SAE Standard 
J222, "Parking Lamps (Position Lamps)," De- 
cember 1970. Paragraph S4.1.1.11, which speci- 
fies photometric values for parking lamps, is 



deleted as these values are incorporated in the 
revised SAE standard. 

In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR 
571.108, Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, 
is revised .... 

Effective date: January 1, 1973. Because the 
amendment creates no additional burden, it is 
found for good cause shown that an effective 
date earlier than one hundred eighty days after 
issuance is in the public interest. 

This notice is issued imder the authority of 
sections 103 and 119 of the National Traffic and 
Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 
1392 and 1407) and the delegation of authority 
from the Secretary of Transportation to the Na- 
tional Highway Traffic Safety Administrator, 49 
CFR 1.51. 



Issued on October 2, 1972. 



Douglas W. Toms 
Administrator 

37 F.R. 21328 
October 7, 1972 



PART 571: S 108— PRE 26 



EffacHva: January 1, 1973 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 108 

Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment 
(Dockat No. 72-5; Notic* 2) 



This notice amends 49 CFR 571.108, Motor 
Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Re- 
flective Devices, and Associated Equipment, to 
specify stop and turn signal lens area require- 
ments that are identical for all motor vehicles 
less than 80 inches in overall width. 

As the NHTSA explained in its proposal pub- 
lished April 8, 1972 (37 F.R. 7107), Standard 
No. 108 requires (Table III) passenger cars, 
multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses 
to be equipped with "Class A" turn signal lamps. 
Class A lamps prior to Standard No. 108 were 
generally found only on vehicles whose overall 
width is 80 inches or more. Class A lamps differ 
from Class B lamps in having a minimum effec- 
tive projected illuminated area of 12 square 
inches rather than 3V^ square inches. Paragraph 
S4.1.1.7 of Standard No. 108, however, permits 
passenger cars to m'eet Class A photometries 
through an effective projected illuminated area 
not less than that of a Class B lamp (31/2 square 
inches). The NHTSA, in response to a petition 
from Jeep Corporation, proposed that this ex- 
ception be provided for all vehicles less than 
80 inches in overall width, instead of being lim- 
ited to passenger cars, and that stop lamps be 
included as well. 



The comments received supported the proposal. 
Recommendations were al&o made as to stand- 
ardization of lens area and identification of 
lamps providing Class A photometric values. 
These will be treated as suggestions for future 
rulemaking since they were beyond the scope of 
the proposal. 

In consideration of the foregoing, the first sen- 
tence of paragraph S4.1.1.7 of 49 CFR 571.108, 
Standard No. 108, is revised 

Effective date: January 1, 1973. Because the 
amendment relaxes a requirement and creates no 
additional burden, it is found for good cause 
shown that an effective date earlier than one 
hundred eighty days after issuance is in the 
public interest. 

This notice is issued under the authority of 
sections 103 and 119 of the National Traffic and 
Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 
1392, 1407), and the delegation of authority at 
49 CFR 1.51. 

Issued on : October 26, 1972. 

Charles H. Hartman 
Acting Administrator 

37 F.R. 23272 
Novvmber 1, 1972 



PART 571; S 108— PRE 27-28 



EffccHw: January 1, 1973 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 108 

Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment 
(Docket No. 71-21; NoHce 4) 



This notice amends 49 CFR § 571.108, Motor 
Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps^ Re- 
■flective Devices, and Associated Equipment, to 
specify minimum photometric-candlepower re- 
quirements for motorcycle turn signal lamps. 

Standard No. 108 was amended on October 7, 
1972 (37 F.R. 21328), effective January 1, 1973, 
to specify, in part, that turn signal lamps are 
not required to meet the minimum photometric 
values at each test point specified in Table 2 of 
SAE Standard J575d, "Tests for Motor Vehicle 
Lighting Devices and Components," if the sum 
of the candlepower measured at the test points 
within the groups listed in Figure 1 is not less 
than the sum of the candlepower values for such 
test points specified in J575d. Effective Jan- 
uary 1, 1973, Class B turn signal lamps are re- 
quired on motorcycles, and the minimimi photo- 
metric candlepower values for such lamps are 
one-half those required for Class A turn signals. 
The amendment failed to make this distinction, 
and this notice corrects the omission. 



In consideration of the foregoing, paragraph 
S4.1.1.12 of 49 CFR 571.108, Motor Vehicle 
Safety Standard No. 108, is amended .... 

Effective daie: January 1, 1973. Because the 
amendment creates no additional burden, it is 
found for good cause shown that an effective 
date earlier than 180 days after issuance is in 
the public interest. 

This notice is issued under the authority of 
sections 103 and 119 of the National Traffic and 
Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 
1392, 1407) and the delegation of authority from 
the Secretary of Transportation to the National 
Highway Traffic Safety Administrator, 49 CFR 
1.51. 



Issued on November 21, 1972. 



Douglas W. Toms 
Administrator 

37 F.R. 25235 
November 29, 1972 



PART 571; S 108— PRE 29-30 



EftocHv*: January 1, 1973 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 108 

Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment 
(Docket No. 69-18; Notice 14) 



This notice amends 49 CFR 571.108, Motor 
Vehicle Safety Standard No. 6, to delete the 
requirements of the warpagf .ests for plastic 
lenses used on lamps. 

The NHTSA proposed on July 7, 1972 (37 
F.R. 13350), that the lens warpage test be de- 
leted from the motor vehicle lighting standard. 
The test requirement itself, as contained in an 
SAE Standard incorporated by reference, lacked 
objectivity, in that it prohibited warpage that 
would "affect the proper functioning of the de- 
vice" without further clarification. The lens 
warpage test did not appear to add significantly 
to motor vehicle safety. 

Comments to the docket were divided, some 
confirming the NHTSA position on both issues. 
Others objected, suggesting that the agency seek 
to establish objective compliance criteria. On 
review of all data and arguments, the NHTSA 
finds that a safety problem that would justify 
the development of such a requirement has not 
been demonstrated. 

In the future, if serious problems of lens war- 
page arise, they may be dealt with immediately 



as safety-related defects under section 113 of the 
National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 
and steps can be taken to develop and promulgate 
an objective test. 

In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR 
§ 571.108 is amended 

Effective date: Jan. 1, 1973. Because this 
amendment relieves a restriction and creates no 
additional burden, it is found for good cause 
shown that an effective date earlier than 180 days 
after issuance is in the public interest. 

This notice is issued under the authority of 
sections 103 and 119 of the National Traffic and 
Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 
1392, 1407) and the delegation of authority at 
49 CFR 1.51. 

Issued on December 29, 1972. 

Jack L. Groldberg 
Acting Administrator 

38 F.R. 743 
January 4, 1973 



PART 571; S 108— PRE 31-32 



HtacHv*: hbnrary S, 1973 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO MOTOR VEHiaE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 108 

Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment 
(Dock*! No. 71-21; NoHc* 6) 



This notice denies petitions for reconsideration 
of an amendment to Federal Motor Vehicle 
Safety Standard No. 108 published on October 7, 
1972, that modified the method by which con- 
formity of certain lamps to photometric require- 
ments is determined. 

The National Highway Traffic Safety Admin- 
istration amended 49 CFR § 571.108, Motor Ve- 
hicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective 
Devices, and Associated Equipment, on October 7, 
1972, (37 F.R. 21328) to allow photometric con- 
formance of parking lamps, taillamps, stop lamps, 
and turn signal lamps to be based upon the sum 
of values derived from grouping individual test 
points rather than upon a requirement of con- 
formance at each test point. Thereafter, pursuant 
to 49 CFR § 553.35, petitions for reconsideration 
of the amendment were filed by American Motors 
Corporation, Ford Motor Company, Greneral 
Motors Corporation, SWF-Spezial fabrik fur 
Autozubehor Gustav Rau GmbH, and Volks- 
wagen of America, Inc. Petitions raising the 
same issues but not timely filed were submitted 
by Automobiles Peugeot on behalf of the Asso- 
ciation Peugeot- Renault and Westfalische Metall 
Industry KG. Chrysler Corporation submitted 
a request for an interpretation. The Administra- 
tion has declined to grant requested relief. 

1. Incltision of SAE Recommended Practice 
J266. All petitioners except General Motors 
asked for adoption in its entirety of SAE Recom- 
mended Practice J256, "Service Performance 
Requirements for Motor Vehicle Lighting De- 
vices," July 1971. Petitioners complain that the 
NHTSA adopted the grouping concept and 
photometric values of Table I and Table 3 of 
the Practice without including a correction ad- 
justment factor or a tolerance for maicimum 



photometric values. SAE J256 permits an ad- 
justment in lamp orientation from design position 
not to exceed 3 degrees in determining compliance 
with photometric requirements. SAE J256 also 
permits a tolerance of 10 per cent in determining 
whether group photometric requirements are met. 
It further provides that the candlepower of park- 
ing lamps, taillamps, stop lamps, and turn lamps 
shall not exceed 120 per cent of the maximum 
values specified in appropriate SAE Standards. 
In support of their request petitioners argue that 
a readjustment factor is necessitated by the diffi- 
culties that test laboratories experience in insur- 
ing that lamps of complex and varied shapes are 
mounted with accuracy ,in the design position. 
Tolerances in candlepower output are requested 
because of variations in test lamp bulbs, and in 
manufacture and assembly of the lamps them- 
selves. 

When Standard No. 108 required compliance 
at every test point, the SAE Standards incor- 
porated by reference did not permit the tolerances 
that petitioners request. Compliance by meeting 
minimum group totals rather than compliance at 
each test point is intended to insert a factor to 
compensate for those variations in test methods 
and manufacture that apparently concern indus- 
try. The tolerances in the SAE Recommended 
Practice represent a further lowering of the 
quantitative performance requirements. The 
NHTSA has determined that no sufficient reasons 
have been given to lower these requirements fur- 
ther, and that it is not in the interest of motor 
vehicle safety to do so. The petitions are denied. 

2. Exclvded lamps. General Motors requests 
the inclusion in the group testing concept of 
clearance lamps, side marker lamps, and identifi- 
cation lamps, as originally proposed by NHTSA. 



PART 571; S 108— PRE 



EINcHv*: Nbniary 5, 1973 



GM's petition is denied. Under the proposal, 
photometric requiremejits for clearance, side 
marker, and identification lamps would have been 
increased, and identical to those for parking 
lamps and taillamps. But the proposed values 
were not adopted, and these lamps were not in- 
cluded in the group concept. The NHTSA be- 
lieves that the group concept is inappropriate for 
lamps of low candlepower, and that requirements 
should be met at each test point. The photometric 
requirements for clearance, side marker, and 
identification lamps, are minimal in nature and 
identical at all test points. 

3. Interpretations. Chrysler Corporation has 
asked whether "the maximum values provided in 
Figure 1 may be used in place of the maximum 
photometric values set out in paragraph S5.2," 
which states in pertinent part that "the maximum 
photometric candlepower values for one-compart- 
ment and two-compartment stop lamps shall be 
300 candlepower." The answer is yes, and para- 
graph S5.2 is being deleted. 

Chrysler has also asked whether "subscripts (f ) 
and (g) of Table 2 of . . . SAE Standard J575d 
applies to the measurement of the maximum 
values in . . . Figure 1 . . . ". There is no footnote 
(g) in J575d, and footnote (f ) does apply. 



Clarification has also been requested as to 
whether the maximum tail lamp values in Figure 
1 are intended to apply at test points below the 
horizontal. The answer is no; the limitation, as 
was true before the amendment, is restricted to 
the horizontal and above. 

In consideration of the foregoing, section S5 
of 49 CFR § 571.108, Motor Vehicle Standard No. 
108 is amended by removing the designation 
"S5.1" and deleting paragraph S5.2. 

Effective date: February 5, 1973. Because the 
amendment clarifies an ambiguity and creates no 
additional burden, good cause has been shown 
that an effective date earlier than 180 days after 
issuance is in the public interest. 

(Sec. 103, 119, Pub. L. 89-563, 80 Stat. 718, 15 
U.S.C. 1392, 1407 ; delegation of authority at 49 
CFR 1.51.) 

Issued on January 30, 1973. 

Douglas W. Toms 
Administrator 

38 F.R. 3331 
February 5, 1973 



PART 571; S 10&— PRE 34 



MmMy*! Nbrvary 19. 1971 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 108 

Lamps, R«fl«ctiv« D«vicM and Associatad Equipment 
(Docket No. 71-21; NeHc* 7) 



This notice corrects the amendment to 49 CFR 
§ 671.108 published on February 6, 1973 (88 F.R. 
8831) that removed the designation "S6.1" and 
deleted paragraph S6.2 from Motor Vehicle 
Safety Standard No. 108. 

The amendment inadvertently overlooked the 
fact that a new paragraph 85.3, concerning lens 
warpage, had been added to Standard No. 108 
on January 4, 1973 (38 F.R. 743). The notice 
published on February 5, 1973 should have re- 
tained the designation of S5.1, deleted S5.2 and 
renumbered S5.8. 

In consideration of the foregoing, section S5 
of 49 CFR §571.108, Motor Vehicle Safety 
Standard No. 108, is amended by adding the 
designation "S5.1" to the first paragraph, and 



changing the designation of paragraph S5.3 to 
read "S5.2". 

Effective date : February 28, 1973. Because the 
amendment corrects an error and creates no addi- 
tional burden good cause has been shown that an 
effective date earlier than 180 days after issuance 
is in the public interest. 

(Sec. 103, 119, Pub. L. 89-563, 80 Stat. 718, 15 
U.S.C. 1392, 1407 ; delegation of authority at 49 
CFR 1.61). 

Issued on February 21, 1973. 

Douglas W. Toms 
Administrator 

38 F.R. 5338 
February 28, 1973 



PART 671; S 108— PRE 86-36 



EffocHvc: January 1, 1974 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 108 

Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment 

(Docket No. 71-21; NoHce 6) 



This notice amends the test procedures relating 
to bulbs in Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 
108, effective January 1, 1974. 

The National Highway Traffic Safety Admin- 
istration proposed on Decembej 1, 1972 (37 F.R. 
25535) to amend two test proceSures relatinjj to 
bulbs. As the NHTSA explained : 
"At the present time, test bulbs must be 'oper- 
-aied at their rated mean spherical candlepower 
unless otherwise specified.' Not all bulbs have, 
been assigned a mean spherical candlepower 
rating. The proposal specifies that when no 
rating has been assigned by the bulb manu- 
facturer or the SAE or, if the lamp is sealed 
and the bulb cannot be replaced, the bulb shall 
be operated at design voltage. Secondly, in- 
stances have arisen where noncompliance of 
lamps could not be proven in marginal cases 
because of the tolerances permitted in test 
bulbs. The notice seeks to render test results 
more reproducible by proposing that tlie fila- 
ments of test bulbs (other than sealed-in 
bulbs) be positioned within ±.010 inch of the 
nominal design position specified in SAE 
Standard J573d, "Lamp Bulbs and Sealed 
Units," or by the bulb manufacturer. Other 
requirements of SAE Standard J575d, incor- 
porated by reference into Standard No. 108, 
remain applicable." 

Comments generally supported the notice, and 
the standard is being amended as proposed. The 
chief objection voiced was that it is difficult to 
obtain test bulbs at the proposed filament loca- 
tion tolerances. The NHTSA finds, however, 
that these difficulties are outweighed by the need 
for objective and repeatable tests. Moreover, 
while the NHTSA intends to use a bulb with the 
filament positioned within ±.010 inch of the de- 



sign position for its compliance tests, a manu- 
facturer is not required to do eo. If the 
manufacturer has test data to show a correlation 
between a Standard No. 108 test bulb and one 
used by him outside the ±.010-inch tolerances, 
his certification could be based on the test data 
and the correlation factor, assuming that that 
factor indicated compliance. Similarly if it can 
be demonstrated that the lamp complied using 
test bulbs having filament locations on both the 
plus and minus sides of the design position, out- 
side the ±.010 tolerance but within the other 
tolerances of J573, compliance could be certified. 

The NHTSA would also like to make clear that 
only the filament in the test bulb for the function 
tested need meet the .010-inch tolerance. For 
example, if a combination tail lamp/stop lamp 
is being tested for the tail lamp function, the 
stop lamp filament need not be within tiie toler- 
ance, and a bulb with a correctly positioned fila- 
ment may subsequently be substituted for the 
stop lamp test. 

In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR 
571.108, Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, 
is revised by adopting new paragraphs S4.1.1.19 
and S4.1.1.20. . . . 

Effective date: January 1, 1974. 

(Sec. 103, 119, Pub. L. 89-563, 80 Stat. 718, 
15 U.S.C. 1392, 1407 ; delegation of authority at 
38 F.R. 12147) 

Issued on June 15, 1973. 

James E. Wilson 
Associate Administrator 
Traffic Safety Programs 

38 F.R. 16230 
June 21, 1973 



PART 571; S 108— PRE 37-38 



IffMHv*! July M, 1971 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 10& 

Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment 

(Docket No. 69-19; Notico 6) 



This notice amends the requirements of Motor 
Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Re- 
flective Devices and Associated Equipment ap- 
plicable to trailers that are either less than 6 feet 
in overall length or 30 inches in overall width. 

On October 25, 1972 the National Highway 
Safety Administration proposed (Docket No. 
69-19; Notice 3, 37 F.R. 22801) as part of a 
comprehensive rule making action that small 
trailers need not be equipped with the comple- 
ment of lighting devices required of larger trail- 
ers. The agency proposed that a trailer less than 
30 inches wide may be equipped with only one 
of each of the following devices located at or 
near its vertical centerline: tail lamp, stop lamp, 
and rear reflex reflector. The NHTSA also pro- 
posed that a trailer that is less than 6 feet in 
overall length, including the trailer tongue, need 
not be equipped with front side marker lamps 
and front side reflex reflectors. In the opinion 
of the NHTSA this equipment is sufficient to 
meet the needs of motor vehicle safety. Com- 
menters generally agreed, and Standard No. 108 
is being amended as proposed. Two suggested 
that two rear reflectors be required. The amend- 
ment, which ie phrased as an option, does not 
preclude a two-reflector configuration if the 
manufacturer wishes. In accordance with sev- 
eral comments, the amendments, which relieve a 
restriction, are being made effective 30 days after 
publication of this notice in the Federal Register. 

Several amendments of Standard 108 are also 
being made by this notice to reflect the expira- 
tion of the stated period for certain compliance 
options. Paragraphs S4.1.1.13, S4.1.1.14, and 
S4.1.1.15 of Standard 108 deferred compliance 
with amended backup lamp and license plate 
lamp requirements, and with turn signal require- 



ments for motorcycles, until January 1, 1973, at 
the manufacturer's option. Since these options 
are no longer permissible, the paragraphs are 
being deleted. Rather than redesignating the 
succeeding subparagraphs of S4.1.1 as has been 
the practice in the past, the NHTSA, in order to 
eliminate confusion, intends to maintain the 
current order and adopt new numbers in succes- 
sive order for new requirements. A similar 
policy has been adopted with respect to footnotes 
in the Tables. Thus, the trailer lighting amend- 
ments adopted by this notice are designated 
S4.1.1.17 and S4.1.1.18. S4.1.1.16 is amended to 
delete the expired option allowing use of Class B 
turn signals on vehicles less than 80 inches wide 
designed to complete a durability test of 100,000 
cycles. Appropriate amendments reflecting these 
deletions are made to the footnotes and references 
in Tables I, III, and IV of the standard. 

In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR 
§ 571.108, Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 
108, is amended. . . . 

Effective date: July 23, 1973. Because the 
amendment in part relieves a restriction and 
creates no additional burden, and in part is ad- 
ministrative in nature, it is found for good cause 
shown that an effective date earlier than 180 days 
after issuance is in the public interest. 

(Section 103, 119, Pub. L. 89-563, 80 Stat. 718, 
15 use 1392, 1407; delegation of authority at 
38 F.R. 12147.) 

Issued on June 15, 1973. 

James E. Wilson 
Associate Administrator 
Traffic Safety Programs 

38 F.R. 16875 
Juno 27, 1973 



PART 571; S 108— PRE 39-40 



EffMtIv*: January 1, 1974 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 108 

Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment 
(Docket No. 69-19; NoHco 7) 



This notice amends 49 CFR § 571.108, Motor 
Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Re- 
flective Devices, and Associated Equipment, to 
specify requirements for rectangular headlamps 
that may be used as an option in a four-headlamp 
system until September 1, 1976. The notice also 
sets forth NHTSA policy concerning rectangular 
headlamps after such time. 

Interested persons have been afforded an op- 
portunity to participate in the making of the 
amendment by a notice of proposed rulemaking 
(Docket No. 69-19; Notice 5) published on 
June 8, 1973 (38 F.R. 15082), and due consid- 
eration has been given to all comments received 
in response to the notice, insofar as they relate 
to matters within its scope. 

The prior notice responded to a petition by 
General Motors. Under it, a rectangular head- 
lamp approximately 6% in. by 414 in. would be 
permissible in five headlamp types (Types lA 
through 5A) proposed for the two four-lamp 
front lighting Systems B and C proposed in 
Notice 3 to Docket No. 69-19 (37 F.R. 22801). 
Photometric values based upon Notice 3 were 
also proposed. As Notice 5 was technically an 
amendment of Notice 3, other headlighting re- 
quirements of the earlier proposal, such as those 
affecting mounting and aiming, were incor- 
porated by reference. 

Based upon comments to the docket and con- 
sideration of the issues involved, this amend- 
ment allowing an optional rectangular headlamp 
system differs from the proposal in several re- 
spects. The most important of these is its in- 
corporation into Standard No. 108 as it is 
currently in effect, rather than into the amend- 
ment proposed by Notice 3. Thus, only two of 
the five proposed rectangular headlamp types 



have been adopted, and the photometric, mount- 
ing, and other requirements are with slight ex- 
ceptions those that are presently required for a 
four-headlamp system. Dimensions are slightly 
different from those proposed, at the request of 
General Motors which has modified its original 
experimental design. 

The comments received expressed a variety of 
opinions on the rectangular headlamp proposal. 
The most common point of agreement was that 
there is no clear safety benefit or detriment in 
the use of rectangular headlamps. The NHTSA 
expressed concern in the notice "that there 
should not be such a proliferation of headlamp 
shapes and sizes that the motorist who has an 
immediate need to replace a headlamp has diffi- 
culty in finding one," and this concern was 
shared by several commenters. The points were 
also made that rectangular headlamps may be 
more expensive than conventional ones, and that 
they cannot be mechanically aimed with equip- 
ment currently in use. Finally, the question was 
raised whether rectangular headlamps might 
encounter more service performance difficulties 
than round ones. 

Commenters generally supported the relief of 
a design restriction imposed by Standard No. 108, 
and this has been a prime determinant in the 
NHTSA's decision to permit certain rectangular 
headlamps. The NHTSA has determined that, 
by reducing the proposed number of types of 
rectangular headlamps from five to two, there 
will not be an undue proliferation of headlamps 
on the replacement market. Since these head- 
lamps are optional and not mandatory, their 
cost is not a major relevant factor to be consid- 
ered in determining whether they should be per- 
mitted. Rectangular headlamps can be optically 



PART 571; S 108— PRE 41 



Eff«ctiv»: January 1, 1974 



aimed, the method in predominant use in State 
motor vehicle inspections, and thus tlie NHTSA 
did not find the difficulty of mechanical aiming 
a persuasive argument. In addition, mechanical 
aimers capable of aiming rectangular headlamps 
are under development and should shortly be 
commercially available. The NHTSA is, of 
course, concerned as to whether the rectangular 
headlamps will encounter more service difficul- 
ties than conventional ones, but does not believe 
that the issue can be proven until such units are 
mass-produced and actually in service. 

These amendments to Standard No. 108 rep- 
resent an interim rather than a final decision on 
the issues of rectangular headlamjis and appro- 
priate dimensions. During 1974 and 1975 
NHTSA expects the world motor vehicle in- 
dustry, through international standards organi- 
zations and regular trade and professional 
associations, to arrive, if possible, at a consensus 
for one set of requirements, including dimensions 
for rectangular headlamps. Late in 1975, the 
NHTSA intends to announce its final decision 
on the matter: whether to remain with the re- 
quirements and dimensions adopted in this no- 
tice, to propose and adopt others, or to revoke 
the option. The agency at this point is not com- 
mitting itself either to adopt any consensus di- 
mensions or to perpetuate the ones desired by 
General Motors, though the field experience with 
such lamps over the next two years may be ex- 
pected to have some influence in the final deci- 
sion. Adoption of these optional dimensions by 



a manufacturer during this interim period is at 
his own risk, and the cost of changing over from 
interim to permanent dimensions, if different, in 
1977 model year tooling will not be considered 
a material factor in the decision on permanent 
dimensions. It is planned that the interim 
amendment will be in effect through August 31, 
1976, and that no petitions will be entertained 
for variant headlamp dimensions or system con- 
figurations before the end of that period, to avoid 
multiplying stock items and disrupting supply 
channels. 

In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR 
§571.108, Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 
108, is amended by adding a new paragraph 
S4.1.1.21 

Fffectire date: January 1, 1974. Because the 
amendment creates an optional system without 
imposing new mandatory requirements on any 
person it is found for good cause shown that an 
effective date earlier than 180 days after the 
issuance of the amendment is in the public 
interest. 

(Sees. 103, 119 Pub. L. 89-563, 80 Stat. 718, 
15 U.S.C. 1392, 1407; delegation of authority at 
49 CFR 1.51.) 

Issued on November 23, 1973. 

James B. Gregory 
Administrator 

38 F.R. 33084 
November 30, 1973 



PART 571; S 108— PRE 42 



Eir«cHv*: May 29, 1974 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 108 

Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment 
(Docket No. 72-22; Notice 2) 



This notice amends Federal Motor Vehicle 
Safety Standard No. 108 to modify requirements 
for lighting equipment on mobile structure 
trailers. 

The National Highway Traffic Safety Admin- 
istration proposed on September 30, 1972 (37 
F.R. 20573) that mobile structure trailers (com- 
monly known as mobile homes) need be equipped 
only with tail lamps, stop lamps, and turn signal 
lamps if the manufacturer so chooses. As the 
agency observed in support of its proposal : 

"Since January 1, 1968, mobile homes towed 
on their own wheels have been categorized as 
'trailers' by the Federal motor vehicle safety 
standards, and required to conform to ap 
plicable Federal motor vehicle lighting speci- 
fications. Pursuant thereto, mobile homes in 
transit have been equipped with the full com- 
plement of trailer lighting equipment required 
by Standard No. 108: Tail lamps, stop lamps, 
license plate lamps, reflex reflectors, side 
marker lamps and reflectors, identification 
lamps, clearance lamps, and turn signal lamps. 
"Because of the limited time a mobile home 
is on the public ways, manufacturers have been 
advised that compliance may be achieved by 
use of a lighting harness removable upon com- 
pletion of transit. The Trailer Coach Associa- 
tion alleges that installation and removal 
expense of the wiring harness adds needless 
cost to 'the only low cost housing available to 
the majority of people today.' It has peti- 
tioned for an amendment of the lighting re- 
quirements such that reflex reflectors, license 
plate lamps, identification lamps, clearance 
lamps, and side marker lamps would not be 
required on mobile structure trailers 'when 
moved under the authority of State issued 



permits whose regulations specifically prohibit 
movement during hours of darkness.' . . . 

"Available information indicates that a mo- 
bile structure trailer, defined in 49 CFR 571.3 
as 'a trailer that has a roof and walls, is at 
least 10 feet wide, and can be used off road for 
dwelling or commercial purp)oses,' cannot move 
over the public roads of any State without a 
permit containing the condition that the trailer 
shall not be moved during hours of darkness. 
In many jurisdictions, movement is also pro- 
hibited during inclement weather or under 
other conditions of reduced visibility. The 
safety benefit of requiring the full complement 
of trailer lighting equipment appears negli- 
gible under these circumstances, and unneces- 
sary for the safety of the motoring public." 

The proposal was supported by numerous mo- 
bile home manufacturers and manufacturers 
associations, and opposed by a number of manu- 
facturers and suppliers of lighting equipment, 
by a consumer group, one State, and other inter- 
ested persons. Those who opposed the proposal 
argued that the presence of large mobile homes 
on the public highway is a traffic hazard per se, 
and that a full complement of lights should be 
required regardless of restrictions on movement. 
Comment*: were made that the existence of State 
laws did not necessarily preclude movement of 
mobile homes either at night or during periods 
of inclement weather. Most States, however, re- 
quire special warning to motorists when mobile 
structure trailers exceeding a specified width and 
length are being transported. This warning may 
be in the form of flagmen, escort vehicles, flags 
on the towing vehicle, and "wide load" signs. 

The NHTSA has concluded that motor vehicle 
safety does not require a full complement of 



PART 571; S 108— PRE 43 



Effactiva: May 29, 1974 



lighting devices on mobile structure irailers, 
whose use of the roads, as a class, is infrequent, 
and confined to daylight hours, when identifica- 
tion lamps, clearance lamps, and side marker 
lamps are not normally in use. Accordingly, the 
standard is being amended to specify that the 
only required lighting equipment for these ve- 
hicles is stop lamps, turn signal lamps, tail lamps, 
and rear reflex reflectors. The NHTSA has de- 
cided to include rear reflex reflectors as required 
equipment to provide some measure of protection 
when a mobile structure trailer is parked on the 
road shoulder at night or during periods of re- 
duced visibility. Mobile structure trailers in 
interstate transit, however, must continue to meet 
the requirements of the Bureau of Motor Carrier 
Safety (49 CFR 393.17, 393.25). 



In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR 
571.108, Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, 
is revised by adding a new section S4.1.1.25. . . . 

Effective Date: May 29, 1974. Because the 
amendment relieves a restriction, and creates no 
additional burden, it is found for good cause 
shown that an effective date earlier than 180 
days after issuance is in the public interest. 

(Sec. 103, 119, Pub. L. 89-563, 80 Stat. 718, 
15 U.S.C. 1392, 1407 ; delegation of authority at 
49 CFR 1.51.) 

Issued on April 24, 1974. 

James B. Gregory 
Administrator 

39 F.R. 14946 
April 29, 1974 



PART 571; S 108— PRE 44 



EfftcHva: May 29, 1974 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 108 

Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment 
(Docket No. 73-25; Notice 2) 



This notice amends 49 CFR 571.108, Motor 
Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, to: (1) update 
the incorporated SAE standard on clearance 
lamps, (2) group test points for determining 
photometric conformance of backup lamps, (3) 
identify load requirements for testing variable 
load turn signal flashers, and (4) increase the 
allowable voltage drop in testing turn signal and 
hazard warning signal flashers. 

These amendments are responsive to petitions 
by Truck Safety Equipment Institute, Signal 
Stat Corporation, Sylvania GTE and Hope- 
Tronics, Ltd., as discussed in the notice propos- 
ing the amendments, published on November 2, 
1973 (38 F.R. 30280). The comments received 
in response to the notice were unanimous in 
supporting the change from SAE J592c to J592e 
as the referenced standard for clearance lamps, 
and in adopting the grouping of test points to 
determine compliance of backup lamps with 
photometric requirements. Comments also unani- 
mously supported the identification of load re- 
quirements for testing variable load turn signal 
flashers, with one commenter suggesting that this 
might better be accomplished by referencing 
SAE J590e. The suggestion was not adopted, 
as J590e incorporates matter not proposed in 
Notice 1. The proposal that the maximum volt- 
age drop across flashers be increased from 0.45 
volt to 0.8 volt was supported by four vehicle 



manufacturers with a fifth suggesting an increase 
to 0.6 volt. It was objected to by six commenters, 
all of them flasher manufacturers, on the grounds 
that it would result in a lessening of light output. 
The NHTSA recognized this possibility in Notice 
1, but noted that the diminution would be so 
slight as to be undetectable by the human eye, 
while the public would be afforded the choice of 
a flasher with greater life expectancy. The 
amendment increasing the minimum voltage drop 
is adopted as proposed. 

In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR 
571.108 Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 
is amended. . . . 

Elective date: May 29, 1974. Because these 
amendments either relax a requirement or reflect 
existing widespread industry practice, and create 
no additional burden, it is found for good cause 
shown that an effective date earlier than one 
hundred eighty days after issuance is in the 
public interest. 

(Sees. 103, 119, Pub. L. 89-563, 80 Stat. 718 
(15 U.S.C. 1392, 1407); delegation of authority 
at 49 CFR 1.51.) 

Issued on April 24, 1974. 

James B. Gregory 
Administrator 

39 F.R. 15130 
May 1, 1974 



PART 571; S 108— PRE 45-46 



Effective: June 6, 1974 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 108 

Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment 
(Docket No. 73-33; Notice 2) 



This notice amends 49 CFR §571.108, Motor 
Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflec- 
tive Devices, and Associated Equipment, to allow 
variable-load turn signal flashers on truck* that 
are capable of accommodating slide-in campers. 

The proposal on which the amendment is based 
was published on January 3, 1974 (39 F.R. 822), 
pursuant to a petition by Ford Motor Company. 
Standard No. 108 presently requires turn signal 
failure indication in accordance with SAE 
Standard J588d, except on vehicles whose overall 
width is 80 inches or more, and on vehicles 
equipped to tow trailers. This has the effect of 
mandating use of fixed-load flashers, since special 
circuitry would be necessary to sense and indicate 
a failure in a variable-load system. 

The NHTSA proposed to include trucks ca- 
pable of accommodating slide-in campers in the 
group of vehicles not required to have a failure 
indicator (and hence allowed to have variable- 
load flashers). The problem presented by Ford 
may be summarized as follows: when camper 
turn signal lamps are added to the turn signal 
circuit of the vehicle carrying the camper, the 
flash rate will increase, to a level generally ex- 
ceeding the maximum specified by Standard No. 
108. Allowing a variable-load flasher will insure 
a uniform flash rate when the camper is installed. 

In response to the opportunity afforded for 
comments, seven submittals were received. Six 
supported the proposal. The seventh commenter, 



a foreign equipment manufacturer, opposed the 
proposal on the grounds that suitable flashers for 
similar applications are available in Europe. 

The NHTSA has determined that the avail- 
ability of variable-load flashers ensuring flash 
rate control within the limits of the standard is 
desirable, and should be permitted on trucks 
capable of accommodating slide-in campers, de- 
spite the lack of lamp failure indication. In 
order to make clear the intent of the regulation, 
language is being added to specify that the ex- 
ception applies only to vehicles with variable- 
load flashers. 

In consideration of the foregoing, paragraph 
S4.5.6 of 49 CFR 571. 108. Motor Vehicle Safety 
Standard No. 108 is revised. . . . 

Eflective date: June 6, 1974. Because the 
amendment allows an additional option and 
creates no additional burden, it is found for good 
cause shown that an immediate effective date is 
in the public interest. 

(Sees. 103, 119, Pub. L. 89-563, 80 Stat. 718, 
15 U.S.C. 1392, 1407; delegation of authority at 
49 CFR 1.51.) 

Issued on May 31, 1974. 

James B. Gregory 
Administrator 

39 F.R. 20063 
June 6, 1974 



PART 571; S 108— PRE 47-48 



Effective: October 14, 1974 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 108 

(Docket No. 74-16; Notice 2) 



This notice amends 49 CFR 571.108, 571.122, 
and 571.123, Motor Vehicle Safety Standards 
Nos. 108, 122, and 123, to modify current re- 
quirements that apply to motor-driven cycles. 

Interested persons have been afforded an op- 
portunity to participate in the making of the 
amendment by a notice of proposed rulemaking 
published on April 12, 1974 (39 F.R. 13287) and 
due consideration has been given to all comments 
received in response to the notice, insofar as they 
relate to matters within its scope. 

The prior notice responded to petitions by 
Cycles Peugeot, Ateliers de la Motobecane, and 
S.I.N.F.A.C., manufacturers, and Bermuda Bikes, 
Inc., and Robert F. Smith, retail dealers. The 
notice proposed that a motor-driven cycle whose 
speed attainable in 1 mile is 30 mph or less need 
not be equipped with turn signal lamps, and 
may be equipped with a stop lamp with one-half 
the photometric output otherwise required. Brak- 
ing fade and recovery requirements also would 
not apply to these low-speed vehicles. Maximum 
stopping distance values for the various tests 
would be added for test speeds of 25, 20, and 15 
mph. Finally, a braking control on the left 
handlebar would be a permissible alternative to 
the required right foot braking control. 

The comments received addressed both areas 
of performance covered in the proposal, and 
areas where no standards currently exist, such as 
motors, transmissions, pedals, and a request for 
exemption from Standard No. 119, Tires for 
Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars. As these 
latter comments cover matters beyond the scope 
of the proposal, this notice does not discuss them. 
The agency, however, has been formally peti- 
tioned for rulemaking covering transmissions 
and Standard No. 119, and will respond to the 
petitioners in the near future. 

The decision by NHTSA not to establish a 
separate category of vehicle was objected to by 



some commenters. In support of their request, 
they argued that the majority of motor-driven 
cycles have engines producing onlj' 1.5 to 2 horse- 
power, and consequent low maximum speeds, 
reducing the need for forward lighting that is 
currently required of these vehicles. Petitioners 
submitted no data justifying their request. The 
NHTSA, however, intends to study the matter 
of forward lighting for low-powered two-wheeled 
vehicles through a research contract with the 
University of Michigan. When the contract is 
completed the agency will then decide whether 
further rulemaking is warranted. 

The proposal distinguished motor-driven cycles 
on the basis of maximum speed attainable in 
1 mile, rather than on horsepower, and the value 
selected, 30 mph, fell within the maximum (40 
mph) and minimum (20 mph) suggested by 
commenters. The NHTSA has concluded there- 
fore that the distinction should be adopted as 
proposed. 

Some manufacturers requested restrictive con- 
trols on power plant output, apparently in fear 
that the engine of a vehicle with a top speed of 
30 mph or less could be modified to exceed that 
speed, and therefore cause the vehicle to no 
longer comply with the Federal standards. This 
agency has not found that course of action to be 
practicable. The various ways to modify a ve- 
hicle after purchase cannot be anticipated or 
prevented at the manufacturer level. On the 
other hand, the great majority of consumers use 
their vehicles in the form in which they were 
purchased. The motor-driven cycle category it- 
self contains a limitation of 5 horsepower, which 
will be applicable to the special lighting modi- 
fications. In the NHTSA's judgment, modifica- 
tions by consumers and the consequent equipment 
requirements should continue to be regulated at 
the State level. 



PART 571; S 108— PRE 49 



Effeclive: October 14, 1974 



The fact that the agency took no action to 
propose a reduction in existing headlamp re- 
quirements for motor-driven cycles was criti- 
cized by several manufacturers as unduly restric- 
tive because of the low speed and power output 
of their vehicles. No justitication has been shown 
for such a change. Motor driven cycles therefore 
must have sufficient generating and/or battery 
capacity to meet the headlamp requirements. 

There was no substantive objection to the ac- 
tual proposals for omission of turn signals, re- 
duced stop lamp photometries, relief from brake 
fade requirements, inclusion of maximum allow- 
able stopping distances for low speeds, and rear 
brake control placement. Accordingly, the stand- 
ards are being amended in the manner proposed. 

Standard No. 122 is also being amended to 
delete the final effectiveness test (S5.5) for those 
motor-driven cycles excused from the fade and 
recovery requirements. The purpose of the final 
effectiveness test is to check the stopping ability 
of tlie vehicle after the fade and recovery tests. 
Since this requirement has been eliminated for 
motor-driven cycles of low top-speed, the final 
effectiveness test is redundant, and an unneces- 



sary duplication of the second effectiveness test. 
No safety purpose is served by its retention. 
Language is also added to the fade and recovery 
and final effectiveness test procedures (S7.6, 
S7.7, and S7.8), making it clear that they do not 
apply to motor-driven cycles whose speed at- 
tainable in 1 mile is 30 mph or less. 

In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR 
Part 571 is amended .... 

Effective date: October 14, 1974. As the 
amendments allow new options for compliance, 
relieve restrictions, and impose no additional 
burdens on regulated persons, it is found for 
good cause shown that an effective date earlier 
than 180 days after issuance of the amendments 
is in the public interest. 

(Sec. 103, 119, Pub. L. 89-563, 80 Stat. 718, 
15 U.S.C. 1392, 1407; delegation of authority at 
49 CFR 1.51.) 

Issued on September 6, 1974. 

James B. Gregory 
Administrator 

39 F.R. 32914 
September 12, 1974 



PART 571; S 108— PRE 50 



Effactlve: October 17. 1974 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 108 

(Docket No. 69-19; Notice 9) 



This notice amends 49 CFR 571.108, Motor 
Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Re- 
flective Devices, and Associated Equipment, to 
waive the requirement that there be a 4-inch 
minimum spacing between a front turn signal 
and a low-beam headlamp whenever the turn 
signal lamp's photometric output is at least two 
and one-half times the minimum required. The 
amendment is effective October 17, 1974. 

Interested persons have been afforded an op- 
portunity to participate in the making of the 
amendment by a notice of proposed rulemaking 
(Docket No. 69-19, Notice 3) published on 
October 25, 1972 (37 F.R. 22801), and due con- 
sideration has been given to the comments re- 
ceived in response t« the notice. 

In order to enhance detectability of front 
lamp function by oncoming drivers at a distance, 
Standard No. 108 through its incorporation of 
SAE Standard J588d, "Turn Signal Lamps," 
requires at least 4 inches of spacing between a 
front turn signal lamp and a low beam head- 
lamp. However, as part of Notice 3, the NHTSA 
proposed in paragraph S8.12 that turn signal 
lamps and low beam headlamps could be closer 
if the candlepower output of the turn signal 
lamp is at least two and one-half times that 
specified for yellow turn signal lamps in the 
SAE standard. Mercedes-Benz of North Amer- 



ica has asked the NHTSA to make an early 
decision on the proposal to facilitate its product 
development plans. 

Comments in general supported the proposal. 
Some requested removal of the 4-inch limitation 
regardless of turn signal photometric output. 
Others felt that the photometric values of all 
front turn signal lamps should be two and one- 
half times the present minimum. The NHTSA 
has decided to amend the standard primarily as 
proposed, but with reference to the grouped test 
points of Figure 1 of the standard rather than 
to the individual test points of J588. 

In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR 
571.108, Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, 
is amended by adding new paragraph S4.3.1.7 

Effective date: October 17, 1974. Because the 
amendment relieves a restriction without impos- 
ing new requirements on any person, it is found 
for good cause shown that an effective date 
earlier than 180 days after the issuance of the 
amendment is in the public interest. 

(Sec. 103, 119, Pub. L. 89-563, 80 Stat. 718, 
(15 U.S.C. 1392, 1407); delegation of authority 
at 49 CFR 1.51.) 

Issued on September 12, 1974. 

James B. Gregory 
Administrator 



PART 571; S 108— PRE 51-52 



EffMtIv*: April 21, 1975 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 108 
Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment 



This notice amends 49 CFR 571.108, Motor 
Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, to resolve an 
unintended ambiguity between paragraphs S4.1.- 
1.11 and S4.1.1.12, and paragraph S4.3.1.1. 

Paragraphs S4.1.1.11, S4.1.1.12 and S4.1.1.22 
allow photometric conformance of parking lamps, 
stop lamps, taillamps, turn signal lamps, and 
backup lamps to be determined by measurement 
of sums of values within specified groups of test 
points. Paragraph S4.3.1.1 prohibits vehicle 
equipment obscuring the photometric output "at 
any test point" specified in SAE materials unless 
auxiliary lighting equipment is provided that 
meets all photometric requirements. Standard 
No. 108 can thus be interpreted as requiring the 
addition of auxiliary lighting equipment if, for 
example, a single test point of a taillamp is ob- 
scured by part of the vehicle, even though the 
taillamp might meet the group i-equirements of 
Figure 1. NHTSA is therefore amending para- 
graph S4.3.1.1 to remove the ambiguity. 



In consideration of the foregoing the second 
sentence of paragraph S4.3.1.1 of 49 CFR 571.108 
Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 is re- 
vised. 

Elective date: April 21, 1975. Because the 
amendment clarifies an ambiguity and creates no 
additional burden on any person, it is found for 
good cause shown that an effective date earlier 
than 180 days after issuance is in the public 
interest. 

(Sees. 103, 119, Pub. L. 89-563, 80 Stat. 718 
(15 U.S.C. 1392, 1407); delegation of authority 
at 49 CFR 1.51.) 

Issued, on April 15, 1975. 

James B. Gregory 
Administrator 

40 F.R. 17574 
April 21, 1975 



PART 571; S 108— PRE 53-54 



Eff«ctlv*: JuiM 1«, 1975 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 108 

Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment 
(Docket No. 74-34; Notice 2) 



This notice amends 49 CFK 571.108, Motor 
Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Re- 
flective Devices, and Associated Equipment, to 
define in objective terms an acceptable level of 
surface gloss and/or haze for plastic materials 
used for lamp lenses following an outdoor ex- 
posure test. The amendment is effective upon 
publication in the Federal Register. It is based 
upon a notice of proposed rulemaking published 
on September 30, 1974 (39 F.R. 35179). 

Paragraph S4.1.2 of Standard No. 108 incor- 
porates by reference SAE Recommended Prac- 
tice J576b, Plastic materials for iise in optical 
parts, such as lenses and reflectors, of motor 
vehicle lighting devices. This practice requires 
in pertinent part (Paragraph 4.2.2) that, fol- 
lowing an outdoor exposure test of 2 years' dura- 
tion, exposed samples, when compared with 
unexposed control samples, shall not show haze 
or loss of surface luster. This requirement has 
been interpreted as forbidding any haze or loss 
of surface luster, and has prohibited the use of 
plastics of uncoated polycarbonate resin, as these 
plastics show a surface change after outdoor 
weathering. General Electric Company peti- 
tioned for rulemaking to amend Standard No. 
108 to define in objective terms an acceptable 
level of surface gloss, so that uncoated poly- 
carbonate plastic may be used for exterior auto- 
motive applications. Although a protective 
coating is available for the plastic, GE stated 
that vehicle manufacturers are reluctant to use 
it because of the cost involved, "from 3^0 cents 
per lens depending upon the size." 

In support of its petition GE submitted a 
large body of technical information showing the 
effect of surface gloss reduction on the photo- 
metric performance and signaling effectiveness 
of various types of lighting devices used on 



motor vehicles. These tests showed that at the 
end of a 3-year period the photometric output 
through uncoated polycarbonate lenses decreases, 
on the average, less than 10 percent. In GE's 
view, deglossing to haze levels of 50 percent 
does not appear significantly to affect the overall 
photometric performance and signaling effective- 
ness of a lamp. The effect of haze is to scatter 
light from the point of maximum intensity to 
the wider angle test points, resulting in a dimi- 
nution of light output at the former, and an 
increase at the latter. In accordance with GE's 
test data and suggestion, however, the Na- 
tional Highway Traffic Safety Administration 
(NHTSA) proposed that haze level should not 
exceed 30 percent. NHTSA tentatively found 
that the proposed amendments would enhance 
traffic safety. Polycarbonate lenses appear to 
offer some benefits lacking in conventional plas- 
tics in terms of heat resistance and higher im- 
pact strength. 

It was also proposed to update the referenced 
SAE Recommended Practice J576b, to J576c, 
effective January 1, 1976. This substitution had 
been previously proposed (Docket No. 69-19; 
Notice 3, 37 F.R. 22806) and favorably com- 
mented upon. The only difference is that J576c 
requires a 3-year exposure test while J576b re- 
quires only a 2-year one. 

Comments submitted in response to the notice 
generally indicated support by vehicle manufac- 
turers, and opposition by manufacturers of lamps 
and plastic materials. It was argued that the 
data in the petition did not support a relaxation, 
and that further data and study were necessary 
before a decision could be made. The.se argu- 
ments do not appear to have merit. On the 
basis of the comments, however, the amendment 
excludes reflex reflectors. The current higher 



PART 571; S 108— PRE 55 



(tav. 6/12/75) 

performance level is justified for reflector ma- 
terials, which do not have a light source shining 
through them. In addition, the amendment 
specifies that the tests are performed on lens 
materials rather than finished lenses. 

The economic effect of the amendment is that 
by allowing use of uncoated polycarbonate ma- 
terials, a lens possessing superior heat resistance 
and impact durability will be made available at 
a lesser cost. 

In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR 
571.108 is amended. . . . 

Effective date: June 18, 1975. Since the 
amendment does not require compliance before 



January 1, 1976 and allows optional compliance 
until then, it is found for good cause shown that 
an effective date earlier than 180 days after is- 
suance is in the public interest. 

(Sees. 103, 119, Pub. L. 89-563, 80 Stat. 718 
(15 U.S.C. 1392, 1407) ; delegation of authority 
at 49 CFR 1.51.) 

Issued on June 12, 1975. 

James B. Gregory 
Administrator 

40 F.R. 25677 
June 18, 1975 



PART 571; S 108— PRE 56 



Effective : Nov*mb«r 34, I97S 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 108 



Lamps, Reflective Devices, and AssociatecJ Equipment 
(Docket No. 75-8; Notice 2) 



This notice amends 49 CFR 571.108, Motor 
Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflec- 
tive Devices, and Associated Equipment, to re- 
move the restriction that would disallow manu- 
facture of vehicles with four-lamp rectangular 
headlamp systems on and after September 1, 
1976. 

The NHTSA proposed on April 30, 1975 (40 
FR 18795) the termination of the amendment 
to Standard No. 108 adopted November 30, 1973 
(38 FR 33084), that disallowed use of rectan- 
gular headlamp systems on motor vehicles manu- 
factured on or after September 1, 1976. In allow- 
ing probationary use of the new headlamp system, 
this agency had concluded that the interests of 
safety required a period in which the systems 
could be evaluated as to on-road performance and 
availability of replacements. A final decision was 
scheduled for late in 1975 on whether to allow 
continued use of such systems, and if so, whether 
to retain the current dimensions or to propose 
modifications. 

The NHTSA has decided to remove the ter- 
mination date of September 1, 1976, thus allow- 
ing indefinite use of four-lamp rectangular 
headlamp systems, and to retain the current 
dimensions. In the period that rectangular sys- 
tems have been in use no service or supply 
problems have come to this agency's attention. 
The lamps have been tested and approved by the 
American Association of Motor Vehicle Admin- 
istrators. No comments to the notice of April 
30, 1975, objected to the removal of the termina- 
tion date, and all those who commented on the 



issue supported it. The dimensions specified in 
Standard No. 108 have been adopted by the 
Society of Automotive Engineers in SAE Stand- 
ard J579c, "Sealed Beam Headlamp Units for 
Motor Vehicles," December 1975, and are now 
accepted by the motor vehicle and lighting in- 
dustries. There has been occasional criticism 
that these systems increase vehicle weight and 
cost without a corresponding benefit in safety. 
Any weight increases are very minor, however. 
The purpose of the amendment was to remove a 
design restriction and to allow manufacturers and 
consumers the freedom to choose an alternative 
but equivalent headlighting system. The cost 
increase is not, therefore, mandated by the 
standard. 

The Administrator also requested comments in 
the April 30, 1975, notice as to the advisability 
of proposing an amendment to Standard No. 108 
that would allow a single two-lamp rectangular 
system. Commenters generally supported the 
concept of a two-lamp system, advising dimen- 
sions based upon SAE recommendations. The 
subject is now under consideration by the agency. 

In consideration of the foregoing, paragraph 
S4.1.1.21 of 49 CFR 571.108, Motor Vehicle Safety 
Standard No. 108, is amended by deleting the 
phrase "manufactured between January 1, 1974 
and September 1, 1976" and substituting the 
phrase "manufactured on or after January 1, 
1974". 

Effective date: November 24, 1975. Because 
the amendment relieves a restriction and creates 
no additional burden on any person it is found 



PART 571; S 108— PRE 57 



Effectrve: November 24, 1975 

for good cause shown that an effective date earlier Issued on November 17, 1975. 

than 180 days after issuance is in the public 

interest. James B. Greory 

(Sec. 103, 119, Pub. L. 89-563, 80 Stat. 718 Administrator 

(15 U.S.C. 1392, 1407) ; delegation of authority 40 F.R. 54426 

at 49 CFR 1.51) November 24, 1975 



PART 571; S 108— PRE 58 



EffMHva: Nevambar 24, 1975 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 108 

Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment 
(Docket No. 75-15; Notice 2) 



This notice amends 49 CFR 571.108, Motor 
Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflec- 
tive Devices and Associated Equipment, to 
modify requirements for clearance lamps on ve- 
hicles of special configuration. 

Notice of the amendment was published on 
June 5, 1975 (40 FR 24204), and an opportunity 
afforded for comment. The NHTSA proposed 
that the inboard visibility angle of 45 degrees 
for clearance lamps need not be met on a vehicle 
where it is necessary to mount the lamps on sur- 
faces other than the extreme front or rear to 
indicate the overall width or for protection from 
damage during normal operation of the vehicle. 
Restricted inboard visibility angles of clearance 
lamps are encountered on many types of vehicles 
other than boat trailers and horse trailers. Ex- 
amples are (1) front clearance lamps that are 
mounted on a truck body behind the cab and 
below the top of the cab, and (2) front and rear 
clearance lamps mounted on the fenders of trucks 
and trailers such as liquid and bulk commodity 
vehicles and cement mixer carriers. 

Eleven comments were submitted by manufac- 
turers, trade associations, and the California 
Highway Patrol. Ten of these supported the 



amendment. The sole dissenter felt that there 
might be traflSc situations where visibility at 
some inboard positions would be important. 
Trailmobile and Recreational Vehicle Industry 
Association requested modifications to Standard 
No. 108 that were beyond the scope of the pro- 
posal and thus were not considered. 

In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR 
571.108, Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, 
is amended. . . . 

Effective date: November 24, 1975. Because 
the amendment relieves a restriction and creates 
no additional burden upon any person, it is found 
for good cause shown that an effective date 
earlier than 180 days after issuance is in the 
public interest. 

(Sees. 103, 119, Pub. L. 89-563, 80 Stat. 718 
(15 U.S.C. 1392, 1407); delegation of authority 
at 49 CFR 1.51) 

Issued on November 17, 1975. 

James B. Gregory 
Administrator 

40 F.R. 54427 
November 24, 1975 



PART 571; S 108— PRE 59-60 



Efhctivt: D»c«inb«r 23, 1975 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 108 

Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment 
(Docket No. 69-19; Notice 10) 



This notice amends 49 CFR 571.108, Motor 
Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps^ Reflec- 
tive Devices, and Associated Equipment, to 
clarify the electrical terminal specifications for 
Type lA rectangular headlamps. 

Standard No. 108 was amended on November 
30, 1973, (38 FR 33084) to specify requirements 
for rectangular headlamps that may be used as 
an option in a four-headlamp system. Figure 2 
of the amended standard specifies certain inter- 
changeability features of Type lA and 2A rectan- 
gular headlamps, including location and arrange- 
ment of the electrical terminals. The three 
terminals shown in Figure 2 are designed as 
"ground," "lower beam," and "Type 2A upper 
beam." The terminal designated as "lower beam" 
is used as the terminal for the upper beam on 
Type lA headlamps. This is implied by the 
notation, "no connection or terminal for Type 
lA headlamp," under the phrase "Type 2A 
upper beam," since the ground is not a connec- 
tion, but the figure may not be sufficiently clear 
on that point. In order to make it clear, this 
notice amends Figure 2 so that the "lower beam" 
terminal is redesignated as the "Type 2A lower 
beam or Type lA upper beam" terminal. 

It has also come to the attention of this agency 
that certain dimensional tolerances of Figure 2 
are unnecessarily restrictive and that other 
methods of dimensioning are more applicable in 
certain cases. In addition, an optional terminal 



configuration permitted for other headlamps is 
not currently included for the Type lA and 2A 
headlamps. 

Accordingly, Figure 2 is being revised to pro- 
vide a tolerance change to the overall lamp width 
(6.58 inches) and height (4.20 inches). The lamp 
comer radius of 0.56 inch is changed to 0.54 inch, 
a terminal spacing of 0.333 inch is changed to 
0.335 inch, and an optional terminal configura- 
tion is specified. A dimension is included for the 
seating lugs, and a different method of dimen- 
sioning the locating lug is specified. 

These changes do not affect interchangeability 
or performance of the lamps and are specified 
only to relieve unnecessary restrictions. 

Effective date: December 23, 1975. Because the 
amendment creates no additional burden upon 
any person it is found for good cause shown that 
an immediate effective date is in the public 
interest. 

(Sec. 103, 119, Pub L. 89-563, 80 Stat. 718, 15 
U.S.C. 1392, 1407; delegation of authority at 
49 CFR 1.51) 



Issued on December 3, 1975. 



James B. Gregory 
Administrator 

40 F.R. 59349 
December 23, 1975 



PART 571; S 108— PRE 61-62 



Effective: Jonuary S, 1976 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 108 

Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment 
(Docket No. 69-19; Notice 11) 



This notice amends 49 CFR 571.108, Motor 
Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflec- 
tive Devices, and Associated Equipment, pri- 
marily to modify requirements applicable to turn 
signal lamps. The amendments are effective 
January 5, 1976. 

Triangle Home Products has petitioned for 
immediate adoption of SAE Standard J588e, 
Turn Signal Lamps, September 1970, as the refer- 
enced standard for that item of lighting equip- 
ment. This change was originally proposed by 
NHTSA in Notice 3, Docket No. 69-19 ^37 F.R. 
22801). SAE J588e differs from J588d in several 
respects, the principal one being that the mini- 
mum effective projected luminous area of all turn 
signal lamps is 8 square inches. SAE J588d had 
divided turn signal lamps into two classes, A and 
B, but this no longer occurs in J588e. Class A 
turn signal lamps were those with a lens area 
not less than 12 square inches, while Class B 
were those whose minimum lens area was not 
less than 3.5 square inches. The amendment 
means that the minimum required luminous area 
of turn signals on passenger cars, and on other 
vehicles (except motorcycles) less than 80 inches 
in overall width, is increased to 8 square inches 
from 3.5 square inches, while that of larger ve- 
hicles is reduced to 8 from 12 square inches. The 
agency expects there to be no effect upon safety 
from this reduction as the photometric require- 
ments are unchanged. 

This proposal was not uniformly supported, 
several manufacturers objecting that the increase 
in minimum area from 3.5 square inches to 8 
square inches was unnecessary, and suggesting 
6 square inches instead. The NHTSA notes, 
however, that the SAE adopted J588e after many 
tests that demonstrated that the increase to 8 



square inches, by providing more signal area, 
resulted in better estimation of the position of 
the signaling vehicle as seen by drivers of on- 
coming and following vehicles. Because of the 
increased photometries for turn signal lamps that 
became effective January 1, 1970, it is diflBcult 
to manufacture lamps smaller than 8 square 
inches and produce the required light output. 
Finally, an area smaller than 8 square inches 
would increase the unit area intensity to a level 
that is likely to be distressing to many drivers. 
It is likely, however, in spite of the objections 
to the proposal that the industry conforms at 
present. The NHTSA surveyed the turn signal 
lens of 18 contemporary domestic and foreign 
passenger cars, finding no lens area less than 8 
square inches, with the average at 14. However, 
the amendments permit continued compliance 
with J588d, on an optional basis, imtil September 
1, 1978. 

Notice 3 also proposed the adoption of updated 
SAE Standards, J585d and J586c, for tail lamps 
and stop lamps respectively. There were no 
objections to these proposals. The principal dif- 
ference in the updated standards is the inclusion 
of definitions of and photometering instructions 
for multiple compartment lamps and multiple 
lamp arrangements. SAE J586c also establishes 
a minimum of 8 square inches for the effective 
projected luminous lens area of stop lamps, and, 
in a combination stop lamp-turn signal lamp, 
prohibits, operation of the stop lamp while the 
turn signal is flashing. SAE J585d, in a change 
from J585c, requires measurement of photo- 
metrics not less than 10 feet from the photometer 
screen, the previous distance being a minimum 
of 4 feet. Because of these changes, the NHTSA 
is permitting continued compliance with J585c 
and J586b until September 1, 1978. 



PART 571; S 108— PRE 63 



Elhclivs: January 5, 1976 

Accordingly, Standard No. 108 is being date imposes no additional burden on any person 

amended to incorporate the three new SAE and is found for good cause shown to be in the 

Standards. Editorial amendments are also made public interet. 

to S4.1.1.6, S4.1.1.7, S4.1.1.12, S4.5.5 and S5.1 to (Sec. 103, 119, Pub. L. 89-563, 80 Stat. 718, 

conform them to the new requirements. 15 U.S.C. 1392, 1407 ; delegation of authority at 

In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR 49 CFR 1.50) 

571.108, Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Issued on December 23, 1975. 
is amended. . . . 

Effective date: January 5, 1976. Because the * j ■ ... ^ 

'' ^ • ; n r Admmistrator 

enect of the amendments is to allow compliance 

with either the new or the existing requirements 41 F.R. 765 

until September 1, 1978, an immediate effective January 5, 1976 



PART 571; S 108— PRE 64 



Effective: January 8, 1976 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 108 

Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment 
(Docket No. 69-19; Notice 12) 



This notice amends 49 CFR 571.108, Motor 
Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, to allow con- 
formance with SAE Standard J579c, "Sealed 
Beam Headlamp Units for Motor Vehicles", 
December 1974 as an option to compliance with 
the presently referenced SAE Standard J579a. 

On October 25, 1972, the National Highway 
Traffic Safety Administration proposed (37 FR 
22801) as part of a comprehensive rulemaking 
action that SAE Standard J579a, as currently 
referenced in Standard No. 108, be replaced by 
SAE Standard J579b. Except for the increased 
maximum candlepower (75,000 candlepower) 
specified in SAE Standard J579b, the com- 
menters generally supported this proposal. SAE 
Standard J579c has added a definition of H-V 
axis and a description of rectangular sealed beam 
headlighting systems ; otherwise it is identical to 
J579b. 

SAE Standard J579c provides compatibility 
between headlight beam positions regardless of 
whether the headlamp is aimed by mechanical, 
optical, or visual methods, unlike SAE Standard 
J579a, which results in different beam positions 
if the lamp is aimed by mechanical methods in- 
stead of optical or visual methods. Since the 
headlamp beam position provided by the optical 
and visual aim methods is higher and results in 
greater seeing distance for the driver, the same 
improvement should be afforded by mechanical 
aim methods. 



SAE Standard J579c contains minor changes 
in photometries at certain test points which also 
provide improved lighting, but are of such a 
minor technical nature that allowance of these 
values would be a relief of a restriction. How- 
ever, this amendment of Standard No. 108 re- 
stricts the maximum candlepower output, for the 
present time, to 37,500. The question of allowing 
the SAE maximum of 75,000 candlepower was 
raised in the notice of October 25, 1972, and will 
be considered in future rulemaking actions. 

In consideration of the foregoing, amendments 
are made to 49 CFR §571.108, Motor Vehicle 
Safety Standard No. 108. . . . 

Eifective date: January 8, 1976. Because the 
amendment allows an option, relieves restrictions, 
and creates no additional burden on any person, 
it is found for good cause shown that an im- 
mediate effective date is in the public interest. 

(Sec. 103, 119, Pub. L. 89-563, 80 Stat. 718 
(15 U.S.C. 1392, 1407) ; delegation of authority 
at 49 CFR 1.50) 

Issued on January 5, 1976. 

James B. Gregory 
Administrator 

41 F.R. 1483 
January 8, 1976 



PART 571; S 108— PRE 65-66 



Effective: June 21, 1976 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 108 
Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment 
(Docket No. 69-19; Notice 14) 



This notice amends 49 CFR 571.108, Motor 
Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Re- 
flective Devices, and Associated Efjuipment, to 
provide identical wattajje tolerances for head- 
lamps with rectanfjular and circular lenses. 

Standard No. 108 was amended on January 8, 
1976 (41 FR 1483), to add S4.1.1.33 which pro- 
vided, in subparagraph (c), an allowable toler- 
ance of plus 7.5 percent for tlie maximum desipn 
wattaj]fe of headlamps with circular lenses that 
conform to SAE Standard J579c, Sealed Beam 
Headlam,p Units for Motor Vehicles, Decembei' 
1974. The question has been raised by Stanley 
Electric Co., Ltd., of Tokyo, Japan, and General 
Motors Corp. of Warren, Michigan, whether the 
same tolerance applies for the maximum design 
wattage of headlamps with rectangular lenses. 

The answer is yes, and S4.1«.1.21 (b) is amended 
by this notice to provide an allowable tolerance 
of plus 7.5 percent for Type lA and Type 2A 
headlamps. The 7.5 percent tolerance is the 
average actual maximum wattage :(as opposed 
to design wattage) rating of headlamps listed in 



Table 2 of SAE Standard J573d, Lamp Bulls 
and Sealed Units, Deceinbor 1!)()8, as dcteiiiiincd 
by multiplication of the inaxiiuum anipeiagc 
times the design volts, and applies to all Type 1, 
Type lA, Type '2 and Type 2A headlamps. 

In consideration of tlie foregoing, subpara- 
graph (b) of S4.1.1.21 is deleted and a new sub- 
paragraph (b) is added. . . . 

Effective date: June 21, 1070. Because this 
amendment clarifies an existing requirement and 
creates no additional burden upon any person, it 
is found for good cause shown tliat an effective 
date earlier than 180 days after issuance is in the 
public interest. 

(Sec. 103, 119, Pub. L. 89-563, 80 Stat. 718 
(15 U.S.C. 1392, 1407) ; delegation of authority 
at 49 CFR 1.50.) 

Issued on Jime 14, 1976. 

James B. Gregory 
Administrator 

41 F.R. 24886 
June 21, 1976 



PART 571; S 108— PRE 67-68 



Effective: November 1, 1976 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 108 
Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment 
(Docket No. 75-8; NoHce 5) 



This notice amends 49 CFR .571.108, Motor 
Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Re- 
■flective Devices, and Associated Equipment, to 
allow use of a two-lamp rectangular headlamp 
system on motor vehicles manufactured on or 
after November 1, 1976. 

On April 15, 1976, the agency proposed (41 
FR 1.5870) that a system of two headlamps con- 
forming to SAE Recommended Practice .J1132 — 
"142mm X 200mm Sealed Beam Headlamp 
Unit," January 1976, be used as an option in a 
two-headlamp system, and that applicable ref- 
erenced and subreferenced SAE Standards and 
Recommended Practices not specifically included 
in SAE J1132 be those published in the 1976 
SAE Handbook. A corrective notice was pub- 
lished on May 6, 1976 (41 FR 18687) clarifying 
that the headlamps would be "designed to con- 
form" with J1132, consistent with other require- 
ments for compliance of lighting equipment. 
The comments have received full consideration 
in adoption of this amendment. 

The proposal was generally supported by ve- 
hicle and lighting manufacturers. Commenters 
indicated approval of the relief of a design re- 
striction and the allowance of a greater choice 
of headlamps. Those who opposed the proposal 
commented that it might be difficult to obtain a 
replacement headlamp and that the 2-lamp rec- 
tangular system would complicate the supply- 
distribution network. Others commented that 
new mechanical aimers would be required for the 
two-lamp system. 

In response to these comments, a study of the 
introductorj' period of the 4-lamp rectangular 
system demonstrated that replacement lamps 
were generally available, the supply-distribution 
network functioned as well as with older conven- 
tional headlamps, and that rectangular lamps 



could be inspected and properly aimed as well as, 
if not better, than those witii circular lenses. 
Although the 4-lamp system lequired develop- 
ment of a new mechanical aimer, the 2-lamp 
system will require only a simple adapter for the 
aimer. 

Lamp manufacturers conunented that the rec- 
tangular lamps may have more service perform- 
ance difficulties than the circular types. However, 
unlike the 4-lamp system, the 2-lamp Type 2B 
system provides improved aim, about 15 percent 
higher photometries in low l>eani performance, 
and up to 100 percent improvement in high beam 
performance. 

In accordance with lecently enunciated De- 
l)artnient of Transportation [)oliry encouraging 
adequate analysis of the consequences of regula- 
tory action (41 FR 16200) the agency has eval- 
uated the economic and other consequences of this 
action on the public and private sector, including 
possible loss of safety benefits. Since the system 
itself is an optional one, in one sense there is 
neither an adverse or positive economic impact. 
A Type 2B headlamp is expected to cost 150 
percent of a conventional Type 2 headlamp but 
because of the improved photometries of the 
lamp, the amendment should result in aji overall 
benefit to safety. 

The National Motor Vehicle Safety Advisory 
Council has not taken a position on the amend- 
ment. 

In consideration of the foregoing a new para- 
graph S4.1.1.34 is added to 49 CFR ,571.108, 
Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. . . . 

Effective date: November 1, 1976. Because the 
amendment relieves a restriction and allows an 
optional means of compliance, it creates no addi- 
tional burden upon any person. Accordingly, it 



PART 571; S 108— PRE 69 



Effacllve: November I, 1976 

is found for good cause shown that an effective Issued on October 13, 1976. 

date earlier than 180 days after publication in John W Snow 

the Federal Register is in the public interest. Administrator 

(Sec. 103, 119, Pub. L. 89-563, 80 Stat. 718 
(15 U.S.C. 1392, 1407) ; delegation of authority 41 F.R. 46437 

at 49 CFR 1.50.) October 21, 1976 



PART 571; S 108— PRE 10 



EKvctlv*: Nev*mb«r IS, 1976 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 108 
Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment 
(Docket No. 69-19; Notice 16) 



This notice amends 49 CFR 571.108 Motor 
Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Re- 
flective Devices, and, Associated Equipment, in 
minor respects. 

This agency recently reviewed Motor Vehicle 
Safety Standard No. 108 and discovered five 
minor errors which this notice corrects. The 
first is an amendment of S4.1.1.4 to substitute 
SAE Standard J594e, "Reflex Reflectors," March 
1970 as the referenced SAE Standard, a change 
inadvertently omitted when Table I and Table 
III were amended to incorporate J594e (37 FR 
15514, August 3, 1972). The second corrects 
typographical errors in S4.1.1.17 that occurred 
in the republication of the standard on August 
23, 1976 (41 FR 35522). The third is a correc- 
tion of S4.3.1 which currently excludes "S4.3.1.8" 
from its applicability. There is no S4.3.1.8. The 
fourth amendment corrects a typographical error 
in S4.3.1.1.1 that also occurred in the republica- 
tion of the standard. The final amendment sub- 
stitutes "J593c, February 1968" in Table III as 
the referenced standard for backup lamps, in 



place of "J593e, July 1972". This error initially 
occurred in "Volume 49 CFR Parts 200 to 999 
revised as of October 1, 1975." 

In consideration of the foregoing 49 CFR 
571.108, Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 
is amended as follows. 

Effective date: November 1, 1976. Since the 
amendments are corrective in nature and impose 
no additional burden upon any person, it is found 
for good cause shown that an effective date 
earlier than 180 days after issuance is in the 
public interest. 

(Sec. 103, 119, Pub. L. 89-563, 80 Stat. 718 
(15 U.S.C. 1392, 1407) ; delegation of authority 
at 49 CFR 1.50.) 

Issued on November 12, 1976. 

John W. Snow 
Administrator 

41 F.R. 50826 
November 18, 1976 



PART 571; S 108— PRE 71-72 



Effectiv*: February 7, 1977 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 108 
Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment 

(Docket No. 71-19; Notice 06) 
(Docket No. 75-32; Notice 02) 



This notice responds to petitions for recon- 
sideration of the newly establislied Standard No. 
120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles 
Other Than Passenger Cars, by amendments to 
the standard in the areas of tire and rim selec- 
tion, rim marking, and tire label information. 
A minor amendment of Part .567, Certification," 
is also made. In addition, the decision that the 
agency no longer regulates mobile structure 
trailers (mobile homes) is also set fortli, along 
with appropriate conforming amendments of 
Standard No. 120, Standard No. 108, Lamps, 
Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, 
and § 71.3, Definitions, of Part 571. 

Standard No. 120 (49 CFR 571.120) establishes 
that multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPV's), 
trucks, buses, motorcycles, and trailers shall be 
equipped with tires and rims that are adequate 
to support the fully-loaded vehicle under con- 
templated operating conditions. The legislative 
history of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle 
Safety Act (the Act) (15 U.S.C. 1381, et seq.) 
and §202 of that Act establish Congress' con- 
cern that motor vehicles could be equipped with 
inadequate tires and that regulation would be 
necessary to protect against this problem : 

Sec. 202, In standards established under 
title I of this Act the Secretary shall require 
that each motor vehicle be equipped by the 
manufacturer or by the purchaser thereof at 
the time of the fii-st purchase thereof in good 
faith for purposes other than resale with 
tires which meet the maximum permissible 
load standards when such vehicle is fully 
loaded with the maximum number of pas- 
sengers it is designed to carry and a reason- 
able amount of luggage. 



Standard No. 120 was promulgated January 
19, 1976 (41 FR 3478, January 26, 1976), and 17 
petitions for reconsideration of particular pro- 
visions were filed by vehicle, tire, and rim manu- 
facturers, and by trade associations representing 
these manufacturers. In view of the length of 
time that has been taken to respond to these 
petitions for reconsideration, the eflFective dates 
for implementation of several of the standard's 
provisions were delayed (41 FR 18659, May 6, 
1976) (41 FR 36657. August 31, 1976). The 
standard's basic provision for tire and rim selec- 
tion (S5.1) was not delayed and became effective 
September 1, 1976. 

Tire and rim selection. The primary effect of 
Standard No. 120 is fulfillment of §202 of the 
Act by specification of the minimum load-carry- 
ing characteristics of tires on motor vehicles not 
already subject to the passenger care tire and rim 
selection requirements of Standard No. 110, Tire 
Selection and Rims, of Part 571. The rim selec- 
tion requirements of tlie standard are limited 
(use of a rim designated as suitable by the tire 
manufacturer for use with its product; use of 
"DOT" labeled rims on and after September 1, 
1979) in anticipation of more comprehensive 
regulation of rims as part of an upcoming wheel 
standard. 

Tire selection consist of two elements: With 
one exception, each vehicle must be equipped 
with tires that comply with Standard No. 119, 
Ne\ii Pneumatice Tires for Vehicles Other them 
Passenger Cars (or Standard No. 109, New Pneu- 
matic Tires), and the load rating of the tires 
on each axle of the vehicle must together at least 
equal the gross axle weight rating (GAWR) 
for that axle. The term GAWR is defined in 
§ 571.3 of Part 571 as ". . . the value specified 



PART 571; S 108— PRE 73 



Effective: February 7, 1977 



by the veliicle manufacturer as the load-carryinj; 
capacity of sin<rle axle system, as measured at 
the tirc-pround interfaces." Tlie GAWR con- 
cept fonnalizes the decision eacli manfacturer 
makes about tiie load-bearin<r ability of the tires, 
rims, -axle, brakes, and suspension components 
(at a minimum) chosen to support and control 
the loaded vehicle. 

Tlie Truck Equipment Body Distributors As- 
sociation (TEBDA) questioned the requirement 
that, with one exception, each vehicle subject to 
Standard Xo. 120 be equipped with tires that 
conform to Standard No. 119 (or Standard No. 
100). TEBDA's March 17. 1976, letter concemed 
certification of trucks equipped for agricultural 
service with Goodyear "Terra-Tires." The 
"Terra-Tire" is one example of tires that are 
placed on specialized motor vehicles which op- 
erate both on and off the highway. The tires 
are specially designed and are unable to be cer- 
tified to either of the tire performance standards. 
Section So. 1.1 specifies that "each vehicle 
equipped with pneumatic tires for highway serv- 
ice shall be equipped with tires that meet the 
requirement of [the tire] standard [s] . . . ." 
This language is intended to exclude from the 
requirement for Standard 119 (or 109) tires 
those vehicles which the manufactui-er (or person 
later in the chain of distribution) decides to 
equip with tires other than "tires for highway 
service." The decision is left with the manu- 
facturer at this time in view of the absence of 
data that demonstrates problems in the use of 
these tires that would justify their elimination. 
Any pattern of accident occurrence that points 
to unsafe utilization of non-highway service tires 
would presumably con.stitute a safety-related de- 
fect and could lead to revision of Standard Xo. 
120 to regulate them. At this time, the answer 
to TEBDA is that the tire selection require- 
ments of S5.1.1. .and S5.1.2 as a logical extension 
of S5.1.1) would not apply to a vehicle equipped 
with non-highway service tires. It is emphasized 
that this exclusion from Standard No. 120 bears 
no direct relationship to the determination of 

I whether a particular vehicle qualifies as a "motor 
vehicle" as that term is defined in §102(3) of 

' the Act. 



The second requirement for tire selection 
(S5.1.2) is that "[t]he sum of the maximum load 
ratings of the tires fitted to an axle shall be not 
less than the gross axle weight rating (GAWR) 
of the axle system. . . ." Comparable further 
specification exists when uuiltiple ratings appear 
on the certification lal)el, or the tires used on the 
vehicle are not listed on the certification label. 

Because no petition directly raised objections 
to the requirements of S5.1.2, the agency first 
addresses issues raised in a sepai'ate and out- 
standing NHTSA proposal dealing with tire 
choice and its relationship to GAWR. The 
action (Definition of "Gross Axle Weight Rat- 
ing," 40 FR 58152. December 15, 1975) proposed 
that the GAWR determination be based on, 
among other things, the vehicle's maximum at- 
tainable speed or the maximum load rating of 
the tire established by the tire manufacturer at 
60 mph, whichever is lower. The proposed modi- 
fication was intended to reflect the industry 
practice of assigning (in most cases) and label- 
ing (in accordance with Standards 119 and 109) 
a tire's basic load-carrying capabilities in recog- 
nition of the unrestricted highway speeds to 
which it is normally exposed. This formaliza- 
tion of GAWR determination was intended to 
prevent manufacturers from assigning higher 
capabilities to tires than their 60-mph ratings, 
based on arbitrarily low speeds. 

Most comments supported the GAWR pro- 
posal, although several truck manufacturers 
asked that the term "maximum attainable speed" 
be specifically defined as it is elsewhere in 
NHTSA regulations. Ford ^Nlotor Company 
opposed the proposed change in the definition of 
GAWR as an arbitrary selection of only one of 
the many criteria that entei- into the determina- 
tion of GAWR. The company suggested that 
other means exist to prevent assignment of arbi- 
trary GAWR's based on tire ratings other than 
those established at 60 mph and so labeled on 
the tire sidewalk 

The NHTSA agrees with Ford and notes that 
the "other means" to regulate this practice exist 
in the tire selection requirements of S5.1.2 of 
Standard No. 120. At the time of the GAAVR 
proposal. Standard 120 had not been made final. 
Since its implementation on September 1, 1976, 



PART 571; S 108— PRE 74 



Effective: February 7, 1977 



a manufacturer is free to determine GAWR as 
in the past, but the maximum load ratings 
(marked on the tire sidewall) of tires on the 
vehicle must at least equal the GAWR listed. 
For this reason, the NHTSA's proposal for 
amendment of the GAWR definition is con- 
sidered unnecessary and is therefore withdrawn. 
Further notice and opportunity for comment will 
precede any further action on the proposal set 
forth in that notice. 

Several issues were raised in regard to the 
GA"WR proposal that should be addressed for 
purposes of clarification. The Heavy & Spe- 
cialized Carriers Conference of the American 
Trucking Associations (HSCC) cautioned the 
NHTSA against requiring an "unrestricted speed 
GAWR" on the Part 567 certification label in 
view of two State laws (or regulations) that no 
vehicle can operate on the state highways at 
gross vehicle weights greater than those listed 
on the vehicle in accordance with Federal regu- 
lations. It is common practice to load some 
"heavy hauler" vehicles to a gross vehicle weight 
that exceeds the unrestricted speed ratings of the 
vehicle tires, because the vehicle's tires are 
capable of carrying greater weight at reduced 
speeds. 

As issued. Standard No. 120 required that the 
maximum load ratings of the tires a't least equal 
the GA^^^l. This eifectively limits the GVWR 
to the sum of these GAWR's (except in the case 
of semi -trailers). In the agency's view, how- 
ever, the problem cited by HSCC can be avoided 
by listing additional GAWR's (calculated for 
reduced speed operation) at the end of the cer- 
tification plate following the required data on 
the label. This practice has been followed by 
members of the Truck Trailer Manufacturers 
Association (TTMA) and was confirmed as per- 
missible by the NHTSA in a March 5, 1975, 
letter to the TTMA. In order to aid resolution 
of issues that may arise between States that wish 
to refer to the certification label and operators 
that wish to continue the additional rating sys- 
tem, the agency hereby makes an interpretive 
amendment to Part 567 to specify where addi- 
tional ratings may appear. 

Based on this understanding of the relation- 
ship between choice of tires under S5.1.2 of 



Standard No. 120 and the determination of 
GAWR under § 567.4 of Part 567, a modification 
of the requirements of Standard No. 120 is justi- 
fied. In the case of a vehicle that is incapable 
of the 60-mph speed used by tire manufacturers 
to establish the maxiiiium load rating that is 
stamped on the tire sidewall (typically a powered 
vehicle and not a trailer), it would not be rea- 
sonable to require the GAWR's to be strictly 
limited to the sum of tlie niaximum load ratings 
of the tires on the vehicle. This is because the 
vehicle will never achieve tlie speeds for wliicli 
maximum load ratings were established. In 
many cases, provision is made to rate tires for 
a greater load at the lower (but maximum) 
speed of which a vehicle is capable. In recogni- 
tion of this extremely limited specialized situa- 
tion, the agency amends S5.1.2 to permit instal- 
lation of tires with reduced speed capabilities 
in the case of vehicles whose maximum attainable 
speed is not greater than 50 mph. This amend- 
ment is considered to be a tecjmical adjustment 
of language to fiilly implement the intent of the 
final rule as that was established. .\ separate 
amendment of g 571.3 is made to establisli the 
basis for determination of a vehicle's maximum 
attainable speeds. 

Volkswagen raised a separate issue concern- 
ing the requirement that tlie sum of maximum 
load ratings at least equal the GAWR of the 
axle system. This provision, in the case of an 
MPV, truck, bus, or trailer that is equipped with 
passenger car tires, requires that the maximum 
load ratings on the tires be reduced by approxi- 
mately 10 percent before calculating the sum. 
The purpose of this 10-percent reduction in tire 
rating is to accoimt for the generally harsher 
treatment (impulse and surge loading in the case 
of MPVs otf-road) to which the tires of a ve- 
hicle other than a passenger car are exposed that 
is not accounted for in passengei- cai' tire rat- 
ings. Volkswagen requested data showing that 
MPVs actually experience more abusive treat- 
ment in use. 

The MPV category is based in part on the 
existence of characteristics that make these ve- 
hicles less amenable to pas.senger car standards. 
If Volkswagen has data indicating that the two 
categories actually experience identical usage, the 



PART 571; S 108— PRE 75 



Effective: February 7, 1977 



NHTSA would prefer to adjust the definition 
to ensure that these vehicles are subject to all 
passenger car standards. Until that time, the 
existing rationale for excusing these vehicles 
from some passenger car standards dictates the 
use of higher strength tires. 

As earlier noted, the rim selection require- 
ments of Standard No. 120 are not substantial, 
consisting of a requirement that the rims be 
listed by the tire manufacturer as suitable for 
use with its tires, and a re(iuirement that, on and 
after September 1, 1979, the rims used on a ve- 
hicle be labeled as specified in S5.2 of the 
standard. The September 1, 1979, date for use 
of labeled rims replaced a March 1, 1977, date 
that proved impractical in view of large inven- 
tories of unlabeled rims that exist and will exist 
long after rim labeling is begun. In establish- 
ing the later effective date, the agency noted 
that it was considering the possibility of elimi- 
nating this requirement entirely, to simplify the 
phase-in of properly marked rims as they become 
available. Experience with pliase-in of newly 
regulated equipment in other areas such as tires 
and brake hoses has demonstrated that the re- 
quirement for labeled equipment on and after 
a particular date can create substantial inventory 
and potential economic waste problems. In view 
of experience that the delay of labeling require- 
ments has not substantially impeded certification 
verification and defect actions, the NHTSA has 
decided to withdraw the requirement (that 
appears as the last sentence of S5.1.1). It is 
noted that withdrawal of this requirement does 
not affect the requirement of S5.1.2 that rims 
be listed as suitable by the tire manufacturer 
for use with the tires that equip the vehicle, or 
the requirement of S5.2 that rims be labeled 
with specified information. 

Mobile structure trailers. With regard to the 
applicability of this standard and other stand- 
ards as a general matter, the NHTSA takes this 
opportunity to publish in the Federal Register 
its conclusion that enactment of tlie National 
Mobile Home Construction and Safety Stand- 
ards Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5401 et seq.) (the 
Mobile Home Act) impliedly repealed this 
agency's authority to regulate mobile homes. 
This conclusion was announced in a May .5, 1976, 



letter to the Department of Housing and Urban 
Development that stated in relevant part : 

The National Mobile Home Construction 
and Safety Standards Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 
5401 et seq.) (the "Mobile Home Act") 
established within the Department of Hous- 
ing and Urban Development a comprehen- 
sive program for the regulation of mobile 
homes. We have concluded that one result 
of that statute's enactment was the impliexl 
repeal of the NHTSA's authority with re- 
spect to mobile homes. Accordingly, we con- 
sider that the enactment has the effect of 
amending the Vehicle Safety Act's definition 
of "motor vehicle" to exclude "mobile homes" 
as the latter term is defined in the Mobile 
Home Act. 

The effect of this conclusion is that tire and 
I'im selection for mobile homes (known as 
"mobile structure trailers" by the NHTSA) is 
no longer subject to Standard No. 120 or other 
regulations issued under authority of the Act. 
For this reason, references to "mobile structure 
trailer" in Standard No. 120, Standard No. 108. 
LamipHy Refective Devices, and Associated 
Equipment, and the general definitions section 
of Part 571 (S 571.3) are deleted. 

On the same subject, a May 25, 1976 (and sup- 
plementing July 7, 1976), letter from Firestone 
to the NHTSA asked whether tires manufac- 
tured exclusively for mobile homes and tires that 
are used on mobile homes (although manufac- 
tured for other uses) are subject to regulation 
under the Act. Similar questions were raised 
as to the status of rims, some of which are de- 
signed exclusively for use on mobile homes and 
some of which are used on mobile homes and 
other vehicles. 

As for tires. Standard No. 109 applied to 
"tires for use on passenger cai-s" and Standard 
No. 119 applies to "tires designed for highway 
use on [specified motor vehicles]." By these 
terms, neither standard applies to tires designed 
exclusively for use on mobile homes. In the 
case of tires actually used on mobile 'homes but 
designed for use also on vehicles subject to the 
Act, the agency considers such tires to be subject 
to the standard's requirements because they con- 



PART 571; S 108— PRE 76 



Effective: February 7, 1977 



stitute motor vehicle equipment as that term is 
defined in § 102(4) of the Act. 

As for rims, Standard Xo. 110 contains spe- 
cifications only for rims that equip passenjier 
cars and therefore contains no requirements that 
would directly require performance of a rim that 
was installed on a mobile home. Standard No. 
120 applies to rims "for use on" MPV's. trucks, 
buses, motorcycles, and trailers (other than 
mobile structure trailers) and therefore would 
not apply to rims desifrned exclusively for use 
on mobile homes. In the case of rims desi«med 
for use on any of the motor vehicle types listed, 
the NHTSA would consider Standard Xo. 120's 
requirements applicable, and labeling in accord- 
ance with S.5.2 would be required. 

Rim marking. The second requirement of 
Standard No. 120 is an equipment requirement 
specifv'inn: five items of information (six in the 
case of multipiece wheels) that must appear on 
any rim for use on MPV's, trucks, buses, trailers. 
or motorcycles. The requirements for location 
of the information varies according to the type 
of information and whetlier the rim is part of 
a sinfjle or multipiece wheel. In an.swer to a 
question raised by Kelsey-Hayes and Motor 
Wheel, it is confirmed that these markinoj re- 
quirements have no bearinis on the use of the rim 
on passentjer cars, except as future labeling re- 
quirements in Standard No. 110 mifrht prohibit 
one or more of the items required by S5.2. This 
eventually is considered to be extremely unlikely. 

Based on a comphensive review of the peti- 
tions for reconsideration, the apency has decided 
that some requested modifications in labeling 
requirements are justified. The Japanese Auto- 
mobile Manufacturers As.sociation and Suzuki 
asked that reqiiired labeling be permitted to be 
embossed as well as impressed on the rim. Volks- 
waoren (and representatives from Motor Wheel 
and Goodyear in a February 4, 1976, meetin<>' 
with the XHTSA) asked that rim labelino: be 
permitted on the disc portion of a single-piece 
wheel. The agency considers these suggestions 
to constitute justifiable options that would not 
diminish the level of motor vehicle safety repre- 
sented by the standard, and the standard is 
accordingly amended. 



Motor Wheel requested amendment of the 
standard to state that labeling of multipiece rims 
is permitted in the bolt hole area. The agency 
does not consider the addition of advisory in- 
formation to he a desirable drafting practice 
because the mention of bolt liole kx-ations would 
imply that some restriction on location exists 
when in fact it does not. In an.swer to another 
question from Motor Wheel, moiv than one "rim 
type designation" on rim components of a mvilti- 
piece wheel is permitted by the standard. 

Motoi- AVheel and Goodyear also asked if 
numbers that contain decimals or "trailing zeros" 
{e.g., 7.50) could be shortened by deleting the 
decimal and "trailing zero." The agency believes 
that abbreviation by dropping the zero will not 
be confusing and amends the standard to include 
an example of such abbreviation. Confusion 
would result from dropping the decimal. 

In response to a request by Motor Wheel and 
Rndd Company for a specific provision in S5.1.2 
that the marking requirements only apply to 
newly manufactured wheels, the agency notes the 
general applicability statement in § .')71.7, gov- 
eining the applicability of all standards fomid 
in Part .571, states that ". . . each standard set 
forth in subpart B of this part applies accord- 
ing to its terms to all motor vehicles or items 
of inotor vehicle equipment the manufacture of 
wliich is complete on or after the effective date 
of the standard." Thus, the standard only 
applies to rims manufactured on or after the 
effective date of S5.2. 

Manufacturers asked for several revisions of 
the marking requirements which the agency has 
considered and concludes are unjustified. This 
discus.sion treats the requests in the order tliat 
the markings in question appear in S5.2. 

With regard to the requirement foi' inai-king 
with a designation that indicates the source of 
the rim's published dimensions (S5.2(a)), Daido 
Corporation asked whether tlie Japanese Indus- 
trial Standards' symbol (a stylized combination 
of the letters J. I. and S) or the letters "JIS" 
would meet the requirements of S.5.2 (a) (3) for 
use of letter "J." The agency interprets its 
labeling requirements as strictly as any other 
portion of its requirements and concludes that 
neither "JIS" nor the JIS svmbol would con- 



PART 571; S 108— PRE 77 



Effactlve: February 7, 1977 



form to the requirement of S5.2(a)(3). In re- 
sponse to a similar request by Volkswagen to 
permit "DIN" in place of "D," the agency has 
considered the idea of permitting the manufac- 
turer the option of a choice of designations, and 
concludes they are undesirable in the interest of 
maintaining uniformity and comprehension. 

Grove Manufacturing suggested that the single 
letter designations of "D" and "E" could be mis- 
taken for the load ranges that appear on tires 
and on the certification label. The agency con- 
cludes that the designations on the rim are suf- 
ficiently separated to preclude confusion and 
therefore the recommendation by Grove is not 
undertaken. 

The "rim size designation" required by S5.2(b) 
is defined in S4 to mean the rim diameter and 
width. Daido and Volkswagen asked that a 
width designation followed by a diameter desig- 
nation be considered as satisfying the require- 
ment for designation of diameter and width. The 
agency specified the existing order to distingiiish 
rim designations from tire designations. This 
order of information is being considered as the 
uniform practice to be adopted by the Interna- 
tional Standards Organization. For reasons of 
uniformity, the requests are denied. 

Volkswagen asked that the "DIN" symbol be 
permitted to signify compliance of the rim with 
Standard No. 120 in place of the "DOT" symbol 
required by S5.2(c) for this purpose. The 
agency does not find that the requirement of 
§ 114 of the Act for certification is satisfied by 
use of a designation that has a wholly different 
meaning. Volkswagen's request is therefore 
denied. 

Certif cation label. The third requirement of 
Standard No. 120 is that information about suit- 
able tires and rims for use on the vehicle, along 
with appropriate inflation pressure and speed 
restriction information, be placed on a label on 
the vehicle (S5.3). As amended April 29, 1976 
(41 FR 18659, May 6, 1976), the standard re- 
quires that the information appear on the cer- 
tification labels of vehicles manufactured on or 
after September 1, 1977. 

Some manufacturers and the Truck Trailer 
Manufacturers Association (TTMA) objected t-o 
the provision of this information on grounds 



that valid information already appears on the 
tires and rims that equip the vehicle, and that 
the information could mislead a person to think 
that only the listed tires and rims could be used 
on the vehicle. With regard to the first objec- 
tion, the NHTSA disagrees and notes that an 
improper choice of tires or rims (as could occur 
by replacing original equipment with "custom" 
rims or the equivalent in tires) could perma- 
nently mislead vehicle owners as to the suitable 
selection of tires and rims. As for the possibility 
of misleading, the agency believes that a heading 
over the tire-rim listings (specifically, "SUIT- 
ABLE TIRE-RIM CHOICE") can be added to 
the requirements for optional use by a manufac- 
turer who believes the information would be 
otherwise misleading. With regard to General 
Motors' note that an owner should be guided by 
all available information on tire choice (e.g., 
information in the owner's manual), the agency 
notes its longstanding position that manufac- 
turers may add statements referring the reader 
to other publications for additional information. 

It is apparent from the examples cited by 
manufacturers that the decision to place all re- 
quired data on the certification label could prove 
cumbersome in some cases, particularly those in- 
volving a heavy truck with several available axle 
combinations. In view of these problems, the 
agency has decided to remove the restriction on 
location and permit the information to appear 
on the certification label or on a separate label 
that conforms to the requirements for certifica- 
tion labels. The NHTSA notes that this option 
to provide information on a separate label re- 
sponds to concern of the Truck Body and Equip- 
ment Association (TBEA) for the responsibil- 
ities of its final-stage manufacturing membership. 
The agency does not believe the tire and rim 
information would be as useful in a location 
entirely separate from the certification label, and 
it therefore declines to adopt General Motors' 
suggestion to use the Vehicle Identification label. 

Motorcycle manufacturers and General Motors 
pointed out that the requirements for listing tire 
and rim information after GVWR in the case 
of vehicles, such as motorcycles, that only utilize 
one GVWR listing, is redundant and therefore 
wasteful of space. Other manufacturers sug- 



PART 571; S 108— PRE 78 



Effective: February 7, 1977 



gested that the tire-rim information was redun- 
dant in the case of multiple GVAVK listin<rs, 
although this is not the case because of the need 
to associate the appropiiate GVWR with 
GAWR's that may exceed the G^'WR. Tn any 
event, these comments sup^est that GVWR and 
GAWR could be better linked by i-evision of tiie 
example format to reduce tlie amount of infoi'- 
mation that nmst be listed. The solution is to 
permit listinjr of the GVAVR alone, followed 
immediately by correspond in <^ GAWR's and 
appropriate tire-rim information. The clearer 
format would be used for sin<ile and multiple 
listings. This revision is described in the new 
example that accompanies the rule chanj^es at 
the end of this notice. In conformity with this 
simplification, the rule is also amended to delete 
the requirements for GVWR tire-i-im-inflation- 
listinirs. Dependin<f on manufacturers' reactions 
to the simplified format, a similar chan<re could 
be undertaken for the passenfjer car example 
found in Part 567 (§ 567.4(h) (1)). 

With regard to the items of information that 
must be listed in accoi'dance with S5.3, General 
Motors and the TTMA argued that "tires . . . 
appropriate as a minimwn for the GAWR" [em- 
phasis added] could be construed to require tires 
with load rating less than those that the manu- 
facturer would choose to recommend. To elimi- 
nate any ambiguity, the agency replaces "at a 
minimum" with "as specified by S5.1.2". 

Suzuki asked whether "cold inflation pressure" 
means the maximum inflation pressure specified 
by the tire manufacturer. The TTMA also asked 
for clarification on this point. The answer is 
that the requirement does not call for maximum 
pressure, but the pressui'e specified by the tire 
manufacturer as sufficient to carry the load spe- 
cified by the vehicle manufacturer as the tire's 
share of the assigned GAWR. 

Michelin Tire Corporation noted that listing 
inflation pressure could be misleading in the case 
of tire designations that call for diil'erent infla- 
tion pressures depending on the tire construction. 
It is the agency's view that any possibility of 
confusion can easily be avoided by an indication 
that the tire designation represents a radial tire, 
so that a person substituting a non-radial tire 
size with the same designation is aware that the 
two tires are not identical. 



The TBE.\ requested clarification of the teiin 
"maximum speed" as it appeared in the exani])lc 
that accompanied the final rule. The TBK.\ 
appeared to misimderstand the example as a 
reference to the speed capabilities of tlx' vehicle 
instead of speed restriction of the tiivs. The 
agency has in mind only the rare tire types con- 
structed foi' transit buses and mining and logging 
operations and so designated. Goodyear and the 
TTMA appeared to have the same mistaken im- 
pression of the requirement. 

Speed-restricted vehicles have now been ad- 
dressed under S5.1.'2. In view of the confusion 
that arose over the requirement, and the agency's 
assumption that the useis of these tires are 
knowledgeable in the use of the tires, it has been 
decided to drop the re(|uirement of S5.3(d) 
altogether. 

The TTMA raised several other questions with 
I'egard to the information that appears along 
with the GAAVR. In answer to these questions, 
the effective dates of the standard are such that 
the manufacturer will be requii-ed to list the in- 
formation specified by S5.3 on and after Sep- 
tember 1, 1977. Also, it is not permissible to 
"bracket" the GVWR and GAWR values for a 
particular vehicle by specifying the minimum 
and maximum values that any tire-rim choice 
could provide. Section 567.4 of Part 567 requires 
that the GVAVR and GAAVR's representing the 
manufacturer determination of the particular 
vehicles's characteristics must be listed. 

The standard does not require the information 
specified in S5.3 to be listed alongside the addi- 
tional G\'WR's and GAWR's that a manufac- 
turer might list at the end of its certification 
label as reduced speed ratings. Lastly, the 
agency does not agree that the GAWR ratings 
for a semi-trailer are not related to the trailer's 
GVAVR. While the trailer's axles do not support 
the entire weight of the vehicle, it is still the 
case that the various GVWR's that could be 
assigned to a semi-trailer are affected by the 
GAWR values that can be assigned, and that the 
GVWR probably differs depending on the 
GAWR value assigned. In this sense the 
GAWR's assigned to a semi-trailer's axles do 
"correspond" to its GVWR. 



PART 571; S 108— PRE 79 



Effective: February 7, 1977 

In accordance with Department of Transpor- 
tation policy encouraginji; adequate analysis of 
the consequences of regulatory action (41 FR 
16200, April 16, 1976), the agency herewith sum- 
marizes its evaluation of the economic and other 
consequences of this action on the public and 
private sectors, including possible loss of safety 
benefits. The new options, simplification, and 
reduction of marking and labeling requirements 
should make compliance with the standard less 
costly, while the changes are not expected to sig- 
nificantly reduce the level of motor vehicle safety. 
The exception for speed-restricted vehicles pro- 
vided in S5.1.2 represents a correction of the 
requirements to reflect the agency's intent not to 
prevent the assignment of greater load-carrj'ing 
capabilities to vehicles at lower speeds. Permit- 
ting this practice to continue will result in the 
avoidance of new costs in the economy. 

In consideration of the postponement of effec- 
tive dates already granted for rim marking and 
the tire information labeling, the agency con- 
cludes that the present effective date schedule 
permits adequate time for compliance. 



In view of the three notices that have modified 
the text of Standard No. 120, the entire stand- 
ard (incorporating the amendments made by this 
notice) is published for the convenience of per- 
sons affected. 

In consideration of the foregoing. Chapter V 
of Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, is 
amended .... 

Effective date : Changes to the text of the Fed- 
eral Register may be made immediately. The 
provisions of Standard No. 120 are in effect at 
this time, except as otherwise provided in the 
standard. 

(Sec. 103, 119, Pub. L. 89-563, 80 Stat. 718 
(15 U.S.C. 1392, 1407); delegation of authority 
at 49 CFR 1.50) 

Issued on January 28, 1977. 

John W. Snow 
Administrator 

42 F.R. 7140 
February 7, 1977 



PART 571; S 108— PRE 80 



Effective: January 1, 1979 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 108 



Motor Vehicle Lighting 
(Docket No. 77-5; Notice 2) 



This notice was preceded by a notice of pro- 
posed rulemaking issued pursuant to a petition 
for rulemaking. It amends color specifications 
for motor vehicle signaling devices. This change 
is adopted to facilitate manufacturer conform- 
ance with OSHA requirements. The change 
slightly modifies the acceptable color coordinates 
for yellow (amber). 

Effective date: January 1, 1979, with optional 
compliance permitted as of the date of publica- 
tion of this amendment in the Federal Register. 

For further information contact : 
Bill Eason, Office of Vehicle Safety Stand- 
ards, National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., 
Washington, D.C. 20590 (202-426-2720). 

Supplementary information : On October 25, 
1976, the General Electric Company (GE) peti- 
tioned for an initiation of rulemaking t-o amend 
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 
to substitute SAE Standard J578b, "Color 
Specification for Electric Signal Lighting De- 
vices," September 1974, as the color standard 
for motor vehicle lighting equipment. GE 
has been confronted with an OSHA proposal 
to lower the maximum permissible level of ar- 
senic used in glass making, and on that basis 
intended to eliminate arsenic entirely from its 
production. Clear glass made with a substitute 



for arsenic apparently absorbs yellow dye in a 
manner that differs from glass made with arsenic, 
with the result that yellow light emitted through 
it no longer conforms to the color coordinates for 
yellow (amber) of SAE J578a, but would be 
within those for J578b. The NHTSA deferred 
immediate action because of the imminence of 
SAE J578c which contains color coordinates that 
are internationally accepted. On February 10, 
1977, GE modified its petition, asking only for 
a definition of the color yellow (amber) identical 
to that specified in J578c. 

Notice of the proposal was published on June 
30, 1977, and an opportunity afforded for com- 
ment (942 F.R. 33354). Seven comments were re- 
ceived on the proposal, all of which concurred 
with it. The amendment is therefore adopted. 

In consideration of the foregoing paragraph 
S4.1.5 of 49 CFR 571.108, Motor Vehcile Safety 
Standard No. 108 is amended. . . . 

(Sec. 103, 119, Pub. L. 89-563, 80 Stat. 718 
(15 U.S.C. 1302, 1407) ; delegation of authority 
at 49 CFR 1.50) 



Issued on June 8, 1978. 



Joan CI ay brook 
Administrator 

43 F.R. 25822-25823 
June 15, 1978 



PART 571; S 108— PRE 81-82 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 108 

Motor Vehicle Lighting 

(Docket No. 78-5; Notice 3) 



Action: Final rule. 

Surmnary : This notice establishes an alternate 
performance standard for most motor vehicle 
headlamps which would allow candlepower 
output on the upper beam to be double the 
amount currently permitted. It also establishes 
a marking code for identification and certifica- 
tion of the new headlamps. It also requires that 
headlamps be adjustable without the necessity of 
removing trim rings or other ornamental parts. 
The amendment is issued under the National 
TraflSc and Motor Vehicle Safety Act which re- 
quires the issuance of appropriate safety stand- 
ards. This standard will allow the production of 
headlamps, both as original and aftermarket 
equipment, that provide the driver with an in- 
crease in seeing distance, and that are marked 
to insurse compatibility of replacement. 

Ejfective dates: The photometric portion of the 
amendment is effective upon publication in the 
Federal Register. Lens marking and certifica- 
tion requirements are effective July 1, 1979. The 
headlamp adjustability requirement is effective 
October 1, 1979. 

For further information contact: 

Bill Eason, Office of Rulemaking, National 
Highway Traffic Safety Admini.stration, 
Washington, D.C., 202-426-2720. 

Supplementary information: On February 23, 
1978, the NHTSA published in 43 FR 7451 
a notice of proposal rulemaking (NPRM) 
that would reduce accidents on the Nation's 
streets and highways by allowing the produc- 
tion of motor vehicle headlamps with greater 
light output. The proposal was issued in 
response to petitions for rulemaking submitted 



by GTE, Sylvania. General Motors Corp.. Koito 
Manufacturing Co. Ltd. and General Electric Co. 

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 
108 (49 CFR .571.108), Lamps, Reflective Devices 
a/nd Associated Equipment, requires motor ve- 
hicles other than motorcycles to be equipped with 
a headlighting system that meets, among other 
specifications, minimum and maximum photo- 
metric output values specified by the Society of 
Automotive Engineers in SAE Standard J579a, 
Sealed Beam Headlamp Units for Motor Ve- 
hicles, August 1965. Under this standard, the 
maximum candlepower (cp) of headlamps in 
operation on motor vehicles shall not exceed 
75,000. The SAE revised its standard in Decem- 
ber 1974 (J579c), one eflFect of which was to raise 
the system total output ceiling to 150,000 cp. 
Shortly thereafter NHTSA added paragraph 
S4.1.1.33 to Standard No. 108 to allow manufac- 
turers to comply with J579c if they wished, pro- 
vided that the ceiling imposed by J579a was not 
exceeded. NHTSA's amendment also imposed 
maximum design wattage limitations at 12.8 
volts. These standards apply to traditional 
headlamp systems with circular lenses and to a 
newer system consisting of four lamps with 
rectangular lenses. AMien SAE adopted Recom- 
hended Practice J1132 "142 mm x 200mm Sealed 
Beam Headlamp Unit", in January 1976, estab- 
lishing specifications for a two-lamp rectangular 
headlamp system, NHTSA added S4.1.1.34, effe- 
tive November 1, 1976, allowing this system, 
without imposing additional candlepower output 
restrictions. The reason for this regulatory 
anomaly with NHTSA's intent to raise the 
candlepower ceiling on the three other head- 
lighting systems within the near furture (now 
accomplished by this amendment) and the desire 



PART 571; S 108— PRE 83 



not to impose a limitation on manufacturers 
of the newest system which would be in effect 
for only a relatively short time. NHTSA re- 
search has demonstrated that an increase in photo- 
metrics to a maximum of 150,000 cp will enhance 
seeing ability without any significant increase in 
glare from properly aimed headlights, but that 
photometric output exceeding 150,000 cp results 
in only a marginal increase in visibility with an 
increase in glare. 

In addition, NHTSA proposed establishment 
of a marking code to be embedded in the lens of 
each headlamp designed to comply with SAE 
J579c to enable the agency to determine with 
ease which version of Standard No. 108 applies 
to the headlamp, as well as enabling a consumer 
to replace original equipment headlamps with 
lamps of compatible photometric output. A 
marking system identifying headlamps as type 
"lA", etc. currently exists. The new proposed 
code consists of three characters. The first is a 
number indicating the number of beams produced 
by the lamp, i.e., 1 or 2. The second character 
is a letter indicating whether the headlamp is a 
large or small rectangular or circular headlamp. 
The final character indicates the version, or re- 
quirement, of Standard No. 108 which apply to 
the lamp. For the present this will be "1", until 
requirements change to the extent that a new 
identification number is required, as it is anti- 
cipated that future headlighting systems may 
have different wattages, beam patterns and other 
characteristics and could not sei-ve as replace- 
ments for J579c headlamps. 

The agency proposed that types lA, 2A, and 
2B would retain their present nomenclature (plus 
the final digit), while 534 inch diameter (146 mm 
diameter) headlamps will be identified by the 
letter "C", and 7 inch diameter lamps (178 mm 
diameter) with the letter "D". Thus, a Type 
2D1 headlamp would be the new identification 
for a Type 2 (7 inch) headlamp permitted a 
maximum candlepower output of 75,000. Also 
on the lens, at a location of the manufacturer's 
choosing, would be the letters "DOT" certifying 
compliance with requirements of Standard No. 
108. Manufacturers wishing to manufacture 
high intensity lamps will probably change lens 
molds anyway to provide other marking and to 
secure improved beam pattern control. 



Other proposed changes include substituting 
SAE J571d for J57lc and J580b for J580a as 
two of the referenced standards on headlamps. 
SAE J57ld incorporates Figure 2 of present 
Standard No. 108 which would be deleted from 
the body of the standard under the proposal. 
SAE J580b differd fi-om J580a primarily by 
the addition of a definition for "aiming screws", 
changes of the aiming adjustment test procedure, 
and the requirement of aim retention with 
specified applied forces. 

More than 380 comments on the proposal were 
received from manufacturers. State motor ve- 
hicles officials, and motorists. All comments have 
been considered. NHTSA has separated the 
comments into six major areas which will be dis- 
cussed separately. 

I. The Need for High Intensity Headlamps 

The major issue which concerned the com- 
menters was whether there is a need for head- 
lighting systems capable of producing 150,000 
candlepower, whether the sealed beam headlamp 
is the lamp best suited to provide high intensity 
lighting, and whether this liigh intensity lighting 
tends to produce an unacceptabily high level of 
glare. 

Motorists who commented to Docket No. 78-5 
appear divided on the question of high intensity 
headlamps. There are those whose driving is 
largely urban in nature who argue that their 
present headlamps are adequate for their motor- 
ing needs. There are others in rural areas, who 
appear to use the upper beam more frequently 
than the average driver, and who want a brighter 
headlighting system for their vehicles. This divi- 
sion of opinion confirmed NHTSA's belief that 
allowance of higher intensity headlamps should 
be made on an optional basis and that the manu- 
facture of present design headlamps should con- 
tinue. 

Statistics indicate that there is a significantly 
greater number of deaths and injuries that occur 
at night, and that cannot be totally attributed 
to alcohol or fatigue. A disproportionate number 
of these occur in iiiral areas where use of the 
upper beam is more likely to be required due to 
lack of ambient roadway light, and to occur in 
the absence of other vehicular traffic. Wliile it 



PART 571; S 108— PRE 84 



is not possible to determine how many of those 
casualties could have been prevented by better 
lighting, it is likely that the rate would have 
been reduced if the vehicles had been equipped 
with high intensity headlamps; NHTSA's re- 
search data indicates that the average night see- 
ing distance for speeds of 50 mph and higher 
is less than the average braking distance and 
reaction time at that speed. XHTSA's review 
shows that a headlighting system using 150,000 
candlepower increases nighttime seeing distance 
by over 20 percent where there are no cars 
approaching. In addition, research indicates that 
a sizeable number of pedestrian accidents occur- 
ring in rural and suburban areas could be re- 
duced by improvements in roadway lighting; it 
is likely that better headlamps could provide some 
of these improvements. 

Several commenters who are proponents of 
European unsealed lighting systems questioned 
whether the sealed beam system is the best 
medium for a high intensity headlamp, and sug- 
gested it would create an unacceptably high level 
of glare. All of NHTSA's extensive research on 
vehicle lighting has considered both disability 
glare, measured in possible loss of seeing dis- 
tance, and discomfort glare, assessed by test sub- 
jects who were scientifically rated for vasual 
acuity and glare tolerance. The .subjects under- 
took on-road driving tests which evaluated their 
seeing distances while driving cars equipped with 
different headlighting systems, including the 
proposed high intensity systems. 

The conclusion of the NHTSA research, sup- 
ported by the findings of other expert researchers, 
is that the safety of night driving on the upper 
beam would be improved by the proposed level 
of intensity, with only minor degradation of see- 
ing distance from misuse of that beam. Glare 
is a problem even at intensities below 75,000 
candlepower. As headlight intensity increases to 
150,000 candlepower there is an increase in dis- 
ability glare, however it is less than propor- 
tionate to the increase in tensity. The 20 percent 
increase in seeing distance when no car is 
approaching contrasts favorably with the minor 
degradation in the worst case, when the upper 
beam is misused. In that case, when two vehicles 
utilizing 150,000 candlepower headlamps ap- 
proach each other on the upper beam and both 



fail to switch to lower beam, seeing distance is 
reduced only approximately 1.5 percent when 
compared to a corresponding situation invohing 
vehicles utilizing 75,000 candlepower headlamps. 
This minor degradation from increased disability 
glare is transient. Furthermore, high intensity 
headlights are more readily noticeable and may 
improve the response of opposing drivers to 
signals to dim upper beam headlights. NUTSA 
also recognizes that the level of disability glare 
experienced when driving is considerably more 
sensitive to highway environmental factors than 
to headlight intensity. 

In addition to its research, NHTSA has been 
sensitive to the views of those drivers who report 
that they are bothered by glare from headlamps 
of the levels of intensity now permitted. 
NHTSA has reviewed its own research and has 
uncovered no data indicating that disability glare 
(that glare which reduces seeing ability) from 
current headlamps creates a driving hazard to 
the average vehicle operator or to older drivers. 
Discomfort glare varies with drivers, however, 
and generally the eyes of older drivers are more 
sensitive to stronger lights whatever their sources. 

II. Headlamp Lexs Markings 
Xotice 1 proposed that the lenses of the new 
high intensity headlamps be marked with an 
identification code and with the letters "DOT" 
constituting a certification that the lamps comply 
with applicable Federal motor vehicle safety 
standards. 

As was to be expected, this aspect of the pro- 
posal was of little interest to the general public. 
Comments were received only from States, manu- 
facturers, and one retailer. Industry did not ex- 
press strong support for the proposed code, 
preferring instead to allow each manufacturer 
to retain its own system of trade numbers as a 
means of headlamp identification. Most re- 
quested that sufficient time be allowed to imple- 
ment the new code if NHTSA decided to adopt 
it. 

NHTSA has decided to adopt the code as pro- 
posed with an effective date of July 1, 1979. The 
lenses of headlamps have contained a lens code 
for several decades as a means of identification 
and the rule extends the practice in a logical 



PART 571; S 108— PRE 85 



fashion. Trade numbers are not only more 
numerous than the code characters, but they are 
changed for specific technical design changes not 
necessarily related to interchangeability or per- 
formance of headlamps. Use of the XHTSA 
code will simplify lamp replacement for the con- 
sumer -who will be able to identify a lamp by its 
universally applicable code numlier rather than 
by manufacturers' specific trade number. Since 
then lens code is visible with the lamp installed 
and the trade number is not, the code will give 
consumers and inspection stations a ready means 
of determining whether a balanced lighting sys- 
tem is installed on the vehicle. The proposal 
did not specify the minimum size of the char- 
acters, and the amendment will allow the manu- 
facturer to choose the size and location on the 
lens most appropriate for his lamp design. 

The great majority of comments opposed man- 
dating use of the "DOT" symbol on the lens. 
Many felt that placing it above the lens marking 
code would interfer with beam refraction. 
Others commented on the cost that would be in- 
curred in changing lens molds. Some suggested 
that the size and placement of the character be 
the manufacturer's choice. Two commented that 
they felt the proposal was illegal under section 
114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle 
Safety Act which allows equipment items to be 
certified by a label or tag on the shipping con- 
tainers as an alternate means to certification on 
the item itself. 

The NHTSA has decided to adopt the pro- 
posed means of lens certification as mandatory 
for the new headlamps, effective July 1, 1979, 
with the size and placement of the "DOT" char- 
acters to be decided by the manufacturers. Thus, 
there need not be a problem of light interference 
and the lens mold may be changed at the same 
time for both the marking and certification code 
changes. The agency rejects the argument that 
it is illegal under section 114 to require items of 
equipment to bear certification markings. Such 
a requirement is well within the discretion ac- 
corded the Administrator under the act and 
general legal principle, and is consistent with 
the intent of the framers of the act. The NHTSA 
currently requires equipment items such as tires 
and brake hoses to bear the DOT symbol as 
mandatory certification. 



III. Headlamp Wattage 
Comments were made on the proposed head- 
lamp wattages requesting increases, decreases, 
and minor changes. In the proposal the 2A1 
headlamp was specified as 40 watts for upper 
beam and all comments on watts indicated that 
it should be a higher figure, generally 43 watts. 
The NHTSA agrees and accordingly has revised 
the 2A1 wattage to 43 watts. 

The wattage for a system using 2A1 lamps 
would then be 6 watts or 3 percent higher than 
a system using 2Cl headlamps, whereas the two 
systems should be allowed the same level of per- 
formance. Since there should be no vehicle 
electrical problems associated with a 3-percent 
change in a headlamp intended for the after- 
market, the 2Cl headlamp is provided the same 
maximum of 43 watts on upper beam. 

The proposed type 2D1 headlamp wattage of 
TO watts for upper beam and 65 watts for lower 
beam exceeds present system wattages by 1.5 per- 
cent. This value would have provided the same 
wattage (and therefore performance) for all low 
beams of all systems and would have provided 
equivalent performance to the 2Bl headlamp 
system on upper beam. The comments and 
NHTSA information both indicate that an at- 
tempt to equate systems to this degree could pos- 
sibly cause some electrical problems on older 
vehicles using the new lamps as replacement 
headlamps. Because of this concern of the after- 
market the NHTSA is reducing the wattage of 
the 2D1 headlamp to 65 watts for upper beam 
and 55 watts for lower beam. 

Some comments recommended only a 1-watt 
change for some lamps. Such a minor change 
is insignificant to the effect of lighting perform- 
ance on vehicle electrical systems and therefore 
the NHTSA has retained the same values as pro- 
posed. 

IV. Inclusion of SAE J580b 
The proposal to substitute SAE Standard 
J580b, Sealed Beam Headlamp, occasioned some 
comment. xVmong other things, J580b requires 
that headlamp aim be adjustable without removal 
of trim rings or other vehicle parts. 

"Wliile it is believed that most of the industry 
currently conforms to this requirement, several 



PART 571; S 108— PRE 86 



manufacturers commented that leadtime will be 
required to implement this change. The NHTSA 
has therefore decided to defer mandatory com- 
pliance with this portion of J580b until October 
1, 1979. 

V. Miscellaneous Changes 
In the proposed deletion of paragraph S4.1.134, 
the allowance of two Type 2B1 headlamps on 
motorcycles was inadvertently deleted and is 
hereby reinstated. Notice 1 also indavertently 
omitted allowance of current low intensity head- 
lamps on passenger cars and motor vehicles less 
than 80 inches in overall width. This was cor- 
rected by Notice 2 (43 FR 16783) and is retained 
in the amendment. 

VI. Other Issues 

A sizable number of comments from indi- 
viduals and suppliers felt that there should be 
no amendment of existing headlamp require- 
ments without consideration being given to un- 
sealed headlighting systems that meet European 
standards. 

In brief, these headlamps, popularly known as 
"quartz halogen", do not meet Standard No. 108's 
requirements for sealed beam construction, and 
mechanical aimability. Many unsealed systems 
also exceed the newly increased candlepower 
maximum of 150,000. These commenters fre- 
quently attacked the sealed beam concept as "out- 
moded" and "40 years behind the times", espouse 
the do-it-yourself philosophy of headlamp aim, 
and praise the "superior" lighting provided by 
their imported unsealed headlamps. 

These issues are generally not within the scope 
of the rulemaking proposal under consideration, 
but have been considered, where appropriate, 
as supportive of a desire for better headlight- 
ing. It is felt that the sealed headlamps that 
will be shortly available by virtue of this rule- 
making action, which NHTSA understands will 
utilize the halogen cycle, will provide the 



brighter lighting that many people seek. The 
NHTSA has always expressed its willingness to 
consider alternate technologies supportable by 
objective data upon which safety performance 
standards can be based. In recognition of the 
public interest in the issue, NHTSA has placed 
relevant public correspondence and other mate- 
rials in a general reading file "Halogen Head- 
lamps" available for inspection in Room 5108 at 
400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, D.C. 

In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR 
571.108, Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, 
is hereby amended .... 

In evaluating the cost impact of this rulemak- 
ing action, the NHTSA has concluded that there 
will be none with respect to headlamp manu- 
facturers as the amendment provides an optional 
means of conformance to Standard No. 108. 
With respect to the requirement of J580b that 
headlamps be adjustable without removal of trim, 
it is believed that most manufacturers already 
comply. Those who do not may find it necessary 
to modify' trim or sheetmetal or grille parts on 
a one-time basis but it is concluded that these 
modifications would be minor and that no signif- 
icant costs would be incurred. 

Because the amendment with respect to candle- 
power relieves a restriction it is made effective 
July 27, 1978. 

The lawyer and program official principally 
responsible for this rule are Z. Taylor Vinson 
and Bill Eason, respectively. 

(Sees. 103, 112, 114, 119, Pub. L. 89-563, 80 
Stat. 718 (15 U.S.C. 1392, 1401, 1403, 1407) ; dele- 
gation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.) 

Issued on July 20, 1978. 



Joan Claybrook 
Administrator 



43 F.R. 32416 
July 27, 1978 



PART 571; S 108— PRE 87-88 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 108 

Motor Vehicle Lighting 

(Docket No. 77-1; Notice 2) 



This notice amends Standard No. 108, Lamps, 
Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, to 
specify that rear side marker lamps on large 
trailers cannot be located higher than 60 inches 
above the road surface. This action was taken 
to achieve regulatory consistency with a parallel 
action of the Federal Highway Administration's 
Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety (BMCS) which 
has acted pursuant to a petition by the Inter- 
national Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffers, 
Warehousemen and Helpers of America ("Team- 
sters Union"). The effect of the limitation will 
be to make it more likely that the trailer rear 
side marker lamp can be viewed in the outside 
rear view mirror of the tractor pulling it, acting 
as a reference light by which the tractor driver 
may check the tracking of the trailer's rear end. 

Effective date: March 1, 1979. 

For further information contact; 

Marx Elliott, Crash Avoidance Division, 
Office of Vehicle Safety Standards, National 
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 
Seventh Street. S.W., Washington, D.C. 
20590, 202-^26-1714. 

Supplementai'y inform.ation: On January 17, 
1977, NHTSA proposed (42 FR 3187) that 
rear side marker lamps on trailers with an 
overall width of 80 inches or more be located 
"as far to the rear as practicable and as close 
as practicable to the lower rear corner". The 
existing requirement is that they be "as far 
to the rear as practicable" and "not less than 
15 inches" above the road surface. This action 
was taken as a parallel to rulemaking conducted 
by BMCS which had the following history. 
BMCS published an advance notice of intent to 



amend 49 CFR 393.14 to require large semi- 
trailers and full trailers operating in interstate 
commerce io have the rear side marker lamps 
at or near the lower rear corner (40 FR 31959). 
The purpose of the proposal was to enhance 
traffic safety by providing a driver of a tractor 
pulling such a trailer with a reference light 
vasible in the outside rearview mirror through 
which he may check the tracking of the trailer's 
rear end at night or at such otlier times as the 
headlamps are required. The NHTSA tenta- 
tively determined that a companion amendment 
of Standard No. 108 was required to preclude a 
conflict between the requirements of that stand- 
ard and the BMCS Regulations. 

BMCS, having evaluated the comments to the 
Advance Notice, proposed (41 FR 47948) that 
rear side marker lamps be "as near as practicable 
to the lower rear corner, and visible in the rear- 
view mirror of the truck tractor when the trailer 
is tracking straight behind the tractor." The 
NHTSA proposal required only that the lamps 
be located as close as practicable to the lower 
rear corner. The difference in requirements was 
dictated by the different safety missions of the 
two issuing agencies — that of NHTSA, to insure 
that motor vehicles are manufactured in accord- 
ance with Federal motor vehicle safety stand- 
ards, and that of BMCS, to insure that com- 
mercial vehicles in interstate commerce are 
operated in accordance with that agency's safety 
requirements. Federal motor vehicle safety 
standards do not apply to a combination of ve- 
hicles (tractor and trailer) and it would not be 
possible to determine at time of manufacture 
whether the rear side marker lamp of the trailer 
would be visible in the rearview mirror of every 
possible tractor that could tow it. 



PART 571; S 108— PRE 



Fifteen comments were received on the pro- 
posal, 11 supporting the reasoning relative to 
the relocation of the side marker lamp. Six of 
these, however, recommended that the agency con- 
sider establishing a mounting height range due 
to peculiarities of certain trailer designs. For 
example, side marker lamps mounted at the 
lowest position on trailers designed to carry snow- 
mobiles, motorcycles, or boats would be subject 
to water, dust, mud and road debris. The K. E. 
Dietz Company supported the concept of a track- 
ing light but suggested that a special light be 
provided for that purpose. The proposal was 
objected to by, among others, the Truck Safety 
Equipment Institute (TSEI), because it would 
eliminate the presnt option of allowance of 
a combination clearance — side marker lamp, 
mounted higher than 60 inches and because low 
mounted side marker lamps would not necessarily 
be visible in tractor rear view mirrors. The 
Recreational Vehicle Industry Association joined 
TSEI in objecting on the ground that an option 
would be eliminated. It also cited potential prob- 
lems with obscuration by mud or other road 
matter. Truck Trailer Manufacturers Associa- 
tion was not convinced that the location of the 
side marker lamp was such an impoj'tant safety 
matter that it needed coverage by a Federal regu- 
lation. Concern was also expressed that the 
amendment would not achieve its purpose unless 
the marker lamps were required to project light 
toward the towing vehicle, and unless a candle- 
power output for that light was required. 

NHTSA concurs with those commenters who 
expressed concern about low-mounted side 
marker lamps, and who suggested that a mount- 
ing height range from 1.5 to 60 inches would be 
preferable, and has decided to amend Standard 
No. 108 to reflect this comment. BMCS is join- 
ing NHTSA in a companion amendment pub- 



lished today. Such a range will also afford a 
manufacturer more flexibility with respect to 
trailers of unique design, and should also come 
closer to the goal of providing visibility of a 
reference light in the mirrors of various sized 
towing vehicles. NHTSA realizes that the clear- 
ance — side marker lamp option will no longer 
be available for those trailers on which the clear- 
ance lamp is at a height greater than 60 inches, 
but has concluded that a height limitation must 
be adopted to insure a greater likelihood that 
the purpose of the rulemaking action is achieved. 
Adequate lead time is being afforded for design 
modifications. With respect to visibility of the 
side marker lamp by the driver, it is true that a 
lamp meeting Standard No. 108's minimum re- 
quirement that it be visible at a 45 degree angle 
from its mounting plane might not provide the 
reference light desired, but in common practice 
most of the rear side marker lamps appear to 
exceed this angle and should be visible in the 
rear view mirror. Further, NHTSA believes 
that the light output of current side marker lamps 
is sufficient to provide the desired cue. 

In consideration of the foregoing Table II of 
49 CFR 571.108 Motor Vehicle Safety Stand- 
ard No. 108 is amended. . . . 

The program official and lawyer responsible 
for the development this amendment are Marx 
Elliot and Taylor Vinson, respectively. 

(Sees. 103, 119, Pub. L. 89-563, 80 Stat 718 
(15 U.S.C. 1392, 1407) ; delegation of authority 
at 49 CFR 1.50). 

Issued on August 25, 1978. 

Joan Claybrook 
Administrator 

43 F.R. 38832-38833 
August 31, 1978 



PART 571; S 108— PRE 90 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 108 
Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment 



(Docket No. 78-08; Notice 2) 



ACTION: Final rule. 



SUMMARY: This notice amends Motor Vehicle 
Safety Standard No. 108 to increase the maximum 
permissible candlepower for single compartment 
tail lamps while extending requirements for 
contrast between stop (signaling) and tail (mark- 
ing) functions at test points below the horizontal. 
This action is taken in response to a petition for 
rulemaking from industry. The effect of the 
increase will be to relieve a burden on manufac- 
turers who must monitor production closely to 
insure continuing compliance of existing lamp 
designs with the existing limitation. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: The amendment is effective 
immediately but compliance with the contrast 
requirements is not mandatory until July 1, 1980. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Marx Elliott, Crash Avoidance Division, Office 
of Vehicle Safety Standards, National 
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 
400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 
20590. (202-426-2720). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A limit of 15 
candlepower on photometric output at test points 
on or above the horizontal is imposed on single 
compartment tail lamps by 49 CFR 571.108, Motor 
Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflec- 
tive Devices, and Associated Equipment. The intent 
of this limitation is to eliminate the possibility of 
excessive glare, and to insure that the ratio 
between stop lamps and tail lamp output offers 
sufficient contrast that the stop function can be 
readily identified when it is actuated. 

On February 18, 1977, Truck Safety Equipment 
Institute (TSEI) petitioned for rulemaking to amend 
Standard No. 108 to increase the permissible 



maximum output of single compartment tail lamps 
to 18 candlepower. This figure is derived from 
SAE Recommended Practice J256a Service 
Performance Requirements for Motor Vehicle 
Lighting Devices and Components, June 1972, 
which permits tail lamp output to be 120 percent of 
the maximum value specified in SAE Standard 
J585d, Tail Lamps (Rear Position Light) August 
1970. The reason for TSEI's request is that the 15 
candlepower limitation has become "an 
unnecessary burden on manufacturers who must 
attempt to monitor their productions in an attempt 
to insure a strict compliance with this maximum 
output". TSEI argued that an increase would have 
no detrimental effect upon safety because there 
has been no limitation on candlepower output 
below the horizontal and it was reasonable to 
assume that there must be countless driving situa- 
tions every day "where the following driver is 
exposed to lamp candlepower outputs from 
approximately 15 cp to 22 cp" without any 
evidence of hazardous driving conditions because 
of glare. The basis of the petition, therefore, was 
that a restriction should be relaxed for economic 
reasons, and that the relaxation will have a neutral 
effect upon safety. The NHTSA granted TSEI's 
petition for rulemaking and proposed that the 
maximum output of single compartment tail lamps 
be raised to 18 candlepower, and that the current 
ratio of candlepower output by stop and tail lamps 
in combination lamps be maintained at test points 
above the horizontal and extended to test points 
below the horizontal to minimize problems of glare. 
NHTSA proposed the extension of the ratio to test 
points below the horizontal to provide protection 
equivalent to that at points above the horizontal. 
Standard No. 108 allows combination stop and tail 
lamps to be mounted as high as 72 inches above the 
road surface while in today's passenger cars the 
driver's eye point is much lower, only 38 inches to 
48 inches above the road surface. 



PART 571; S 108-PRE 91 



A notice of proposed rulemaking was published 
on this subject on May 4, 1978 (43 FR 19250), and 
an opportunity afforded for comment. 

Twenty-seven comments were submitted on the 
proposal. There was one objection to the increase 
in candlepower, and two to extension of contrast 
ratios. All other comments supported it. 

An important suggestion made was that NHTSA 
adopt SAE Standard J585e, September 1977 as 
the referenced standard on tail lamps since the 
SAE revision encompassed both of NHTSA's pro- 
posals. NHTSA concurred with this recommenda- 
tion and is amending the standard in this fashion. 
J585e is otherwise identical to J585d except for the 
addition of a final sentence to Note 4 which 
prescribes an alternative way for computing the 
candlepower ratio for combination lamps when 
certain conditions are met. 

The Japanese Automotive Manufacturers Ass'n. 
Inc. (JAMA), objected to the extension of the 
contrast ratio, principally because of its effect 
upon the motorcycle industry. In JAMA's opinion 
there is no need for the requirement to cover 
motorcycles as lamps are not mounted at a height 
greater than 38 inches. NHTSA does not concur 
with this comment. The amendment will insure 
that there is no confusion when the driver's eye 
reference point is lower than the average 38 to 48 
inches above the road surface. This situation could 
occur when a motorcycle is on a hill in front of the 
driver of another vehicle. The mandatory com- 
pHance date of the requirement, July 1, 1980, 
should afford sufficient time for tooling of new 
lamps if needed. 

Chrysler Corporation commented that it saw no 
need to adopt intensity ratio requirements for the 
test points below horizontal since photometric 
requirements for tail and stop lamps are the same, 
whether above or below horizontal. While the 
requirements are the same, the values prescribed 
are minimal and a manufacturer may establish its 
own values above the minimum level. NHTSA has 
concluded that the amendment would assure that 
the ratio now required above the horizontal would 
also be maintained below. It would also avoid use 
of the wrong replacement lamps or lens. 

California Highway Patrol suggested that test 
point 5 D-V should be added to those at which not 
less than a 5 to 1 ratio is required. The NHTSA 
cannot add it at this time since it was not part of 
the rulemaking proposal, but consideration will be 
given to it in future rulemaking. 



American Motors Corporation supported the 
proposal but commented that the 120 percent 
value specified in J256a should apply to all tail 
lamps and not just single compartment designs. 
This suggestion is beyond the scope of the proposal 
and NHTSA will consider it in future rulemaking. 

Dry Launch suggested an increase from 15 to 20 
and 25 candela. This suggestion was also con- 
sidered beyond the scope of the proposal. Those 
values are permitted for two and three compart- 
ment lamps because the light sources are 
distributed, and NHTSA does not believe that 
excessive glare should be risked by increasing the 
maximum from 18 to 20 or 25 candela for single 
compartment lamps. 

The proposal was objected to by G. F. Meese in 
whose opinion the upper limit should be 10 candela 
because excessive brightness irritates following 
drivers. The NHTSA did not agree with this 
comment. There appear to be instances in which 
the upper limit of 10 candela, which is being pro- 
posed by Mr. Meese, has been exceeded, and there 
is no indication that this causes any hazardous 
driving conditions because of glare. 

In consideration of the foregoing 49 CFR 
571.108, Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 is 
amended as follows: 

1. Paragraph S4.1.1.28 is revised to read: 

S4. 1.1.28 Each tail lamp on any motor vehicle 
manufactured before June 1, 1980 may be designed 
to conform to SAE Standard J585d, Tail Lamps, 
August 1970. 

2. Table I and Table HI are amended so that the 
applicable SAE Standard for tail lamps in the final 
column of each Table is "J585e, September 1977." 

In accordance with Department of Transporta- 
tion policy encouraging adequate analysis of the 
cost and other consequences of regulatory actions 
(41 FR 16201, April 16, 1976), the NHTSA has 
evaluated the economic and other consequences of 
this amendment on the public and private sectors 
and has concluded that there is no cost increase 
required by an allowance of an increase in candle 
power in single compartment tail lamps. While 
there should be no increase associated with 
maintenance of contrast ratios at test points below 
the horizontal in combined lamp configurations, 
the NHTSA requested comments on this factor 
and received none. 



PART 571; S 108-PRE 92 



The program official and lawyer responsible for Issued on December 13, 1979. 

the development of this proposal are Marx Elliott 
and Taylor Vinson, respectively. 

Joan Claybrook 
Administrator 

44 F.R. 75385 
December 20, 1979 



PART 571; S 108-PRE 93-94 



PREAMBLE TO AN AMENDMENT TO FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE 
SAFETY STANDARD NO. 108 

Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment 
(Docket No. 69-19; Notice 18) 



ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This notice finalizes the interim amend- 
ment of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 
adopted effective September 1, 1978, which retained 
the requirement that stop lamp lenses on motor 
driven cycles be a minimimi of 3V2 square inches. 



EFFECTIVE DATE: 

immediately. 



The amendment is effective 



FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Marx Elliott, Crash Avoidance Division, Office 
of Vehicle Safety Standards, National 
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 
400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 
20590. (202-426-2720). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On August 31, 
1978, the agency published an interim rule and 
request for comments (43 FR 38831) deleting the 
requirement that low-speed motor driven cycles 
(mopeds) have larger stop lamps effective 
September 1, 1978, and asking whether the 
amendment should be made permanent. NHTSA 
noted it did not intend to include these vehicles in 
earlier amendments increasing the size of stop 
lamp lenses from a minimum of 3V2 square inches 
to 8 square inches. The agency believed that moped 



conspicuity and safety would be reduced if lamps 
on these low-powered vehicles were required to 
have a larger lens area without being required also 
to have higher light output. The effect of the 
interim amendment, therefore, was to retain the 
existing requirements. 

Three comments were received in response to 
that Notice. Two supported the rule but the 
California Highway Patrol opposed it on the basis 
that moped rear lighting needs improvement. As 
noted above, simply reinstating the requirement 
for increased lens area would not improve safety. 
However, the agency intends to ask for comments 
in the near future on this aspect of moped safety. 

In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA 
hereby makes final the interim revision of 
paragraph S4.1.1.27 of 49 CFR 571.108, Motor 
Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, adopted on 
August 31, 1978. 

The program official and lawyer responsible for 
the development of this rule are Marx Elliott and 
Taylor Vinson respectively. 

Issued on February 19, 1980. 



Joan Claybrook 
Administrator 



45 F.R. 13736 
March 3, 1980 



PART 571; S 108-PRE 95-96 



PREAMBLE TO AN AMENDMENT TO FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE 
SAFETY STANDARD NO. 108 

Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment 
(Docltet No. 77-1; Notice 4) 



ACTION: Correction. 

SUMMARY: This notice corrects a typographical 
error in the notice of correction published on 
December 28, 1978 (43 FR 60472). The error appears 
in the designation of the table, identifying it as 
"Table III" when the correct designation is "Table 
11". The effect was to change the heading of the last 
column in Table III from "Applicable SAE standard 
or recommended practice" to "Height above road 
surface measured from center of item on vehicle at 
curb weight". It is therefore necessary to correct the 
heading to Table III. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

W. Marx Elliott, Office of Rulemaking National 
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 
400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 
20590. (202-426-2720). 



Accordingly, Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, 
§ 571.108 is amended to read: 

TABLE III.— iSeywired MoUrr Vehicle Lighting Equipment 



Item 



AppKcable SAE standard 
or recommended practice 



The lawyer and program offical principEilly respon- 
sible for this correction are Z. Taylor Vinson and W. 
Marx Elliott, respectively. 

Issued on February 28, 1980. 

Michael M. Finkelstein 
Associate Administrator 
for Rulemaking 

45 F.R. 14577 
March 6, 1980 



PART 571; S 108-PRE 97-98 



PREAMBLE TO AN AMENDMENT TO 

FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 108 

Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment 
(Docket No. 78-12; Notice 2) 



ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This notice amends Motor Vehicle 
Safety Standard No. 108 to allow an optional 
method of measuring side marker lamp light out- 
put for all vehicles less than 30 feet in overall 
length, regardless of width. This option currently 
applies to all vehicles less than 80 inches in over- 
all width, regardless of length. This amendment 
is in response to a petition for rulemaking submit- 
ted by Chrysler Corp. The effect of the amend- 
ment is to remove a restriction on vehicles which 
are normally built in versions less than 80 inches 
in overall width but which have derivatives that 
exceed this dimension. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: Date of publication of final rule. 
Since the amendment relieves a restriction, it 
may be made effective immediately, July 3, 1980. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

John Simeroth, Crash Avoidance Division, 
Office of Vehicle Safety Standards, 
National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., 
Washington, D.C. 20590 (202-426-2715) 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A Notice of Pro- 
posed Rulemaking on this subject was published 
on September 7, 1978 (43 FR 39839). 

Standard No. 108 requires the photometric re- 
quirements for side marker lamps to be met at 
test points 45 degrees outboard and inboard of 
the lateral center line passing through the lamp. 
However, if a vehicle is less than 80 inches in 
overall width, paragraph S4. 1.1.8 of Motor Vehi- 
cle Safety Standard No. 108 allows photometric 
measurements of side marker lamps to "be met 
for all inboard test points at a distance of 15 feet 
from the vehicle and on a vertical plane that is 



perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the vehi- 
cle and located midway between the front and 
rear side marker lamps." This results in a meas- 
urement of less than 45 degrees instead of a fixed 
45 degrees. 

Chrysler Corp. petitioned that the option be 
available to aU vehicles regardless of width. In its 
opinion, the effect of differing requirements im- 
poses needless restrictions on smaller size vehi- 
cles normally built in versions less than 80 inches 
but which have special derivatives which exceed 
this width: 

"For example, a pick-up truck may be designed 
with wraparound front or rear lamps (that meet 
S4.1.1.8]. If dual rear wheels are installed on this 
same vehicle, its width will exceed 80 inches and 
different side marker lamp requirements will ap- 
ply * ♦ * [and] auxiliary lamps may have to be 
used on these wider vehicles." 

The NHTSA agreed with Chrysler's views, but 
with the reservation that the exception should 
not apply to vehicles whose overall length is 30 
feet or greater. None of these vehicles are cur- 
rently eligible for this option since all exceed 80 
inches in overall width. Those vehicles are re- 
quired to have an intermediate side marker lamp 
that is centrally located between the front and 
rear side marker lamps. All three markers need 
to be clearly visible to motorists from the side so 
that the overall vehicle size is evident. Thus, for 
vehicles 30 feet or longer the 45 degree visibility 
angles are more appropriate than the provisions 
of paragraph S4. 1.1.8. Accordingly, it was pro- 
posed that S4.1.1.8 of 49 CFR 571.108 Motor Vehi- 
cle Safety Standard No. 108 be revised by delet- 
ing the words "80 inches in overall width" and 
substituting "30 feet in overall length." 

Six comments were received in response to the 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, all of which sup- 
ported it. Typical was the opinion of American 



PART 571; S108-PRE 99 



Motors that it is inappropriate to have differing 
side marker requirements based on a criterion 
related to vehicle width when the primary pur- 
pose of the lamp is to indicate overall length. 

In consideration of the foregoing, paragraph 
S4.1.1.8 of 49 CFR 571.108, Motor Vehicle Safety 
Standard No. 108 is revised as follows: 

§571.108 Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 
108 

41 * « * 

S4.1.1.8 For each motor vehicle less than 30 feet 
in overall length, the photometric-minimum can- 
dlepower requirements for side marker lamps 
specified in SAE Standard J592e "Clearance, 
Side Marker, and Identification Lamps," July 
1972, may be met for all inboard test points at a 
distance of 15 feet from the vehicle and on a ver- 
tical plane that is perpendicular to the longitudi- 
nal axis of the vehicle and located midway be- 
tween the front and rear side marker lamps. 

The agency has considered the impacts of this 



amendment under Executive Order 12044, "Im- 
proving Government Regulations," and deter- 
mined that they are not significant. Further, the 
impacts are so minor as not to warrant the prep- 
aration of a regulatory evaluation. The effect of 
the amendment is to relieve a minor restriction 
under which a manufacturer in certain circum- 
stances would have to provide an additional or 
modified side marker lamp. 

The program official and attorney responsible 
for developing this amendment are John 
Simeroth and Taylor Vinson respectively. 

Issued on June 26, 1980. 



Joan Claybrook 
Administrator 

45 FR 45287 
July 3, 1980 



PART 571; S108-PRE 100 



PREAMBLE TO AN AMENDMENT TO 

FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 108 

Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment 
(Doci(et No. 69-19; Notice 19) 



ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This notice amends Motor Vehicle 
Safety Standard No. 108 by supplementing an 
amendment published on January 5, 1976 (49 FR 
765) which adopted SAE Standard J588e, Turn 
Signal Lamps, September 1970 as the referenced 
standard for that item of lighting equipment. The 
effect of the amendment was to increase the mini- 
mum effective projected luminous area of all turn 
signal lamps but a corresponding change was not 
made in the maximum allowable candlepower for 
single and triple compartment yellow rear turn 
signal lamps in Figure 1. This notice effects that 
change. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: Since the amendment imposes 
no new substantive requirements it is effective 
upon publication in the Federal Register, July 29, 
1980. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

John Simeroth, Crash Avoidance Division, 
Office of Vehicle Safety Standards, National 
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 
400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 
20690 (202-426-2720) 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Standard No. 
108 was amended in January 1976 to incorporate 
SAE J588e as the referenced standard on turn 
signal lamps. Table 1 of J588e establishes max- 
imum candlepower restrictions for rear lamps, 
different than those in effect under J588d, its 
predecessor with respect to single and triple com- 
partment yellow turn signal lamps. When J588e 
was adopted, a corresponding change was not 



made to Figure 1 of Standard No. 108 which sets 
out the photometric minimum candlepower re- 
quirements calculated using the "Group" or zonal 
method. This amendment to Figure 1 corrects 
that error. 

In consideration of the foregoing, Figure 1 of 49 
CFR 571.108, Motor Vehicle Safety Standard is 
amended to read: 



GROUP TOTALS, CP 



Groups • • 


TaU lamps 


Red stop and turn 
signal tamps 


Yellow turn 
signal lamps 




* • • 


• • • 


one * three 


Maximum 
rear lamps 
only 


• • • 


* * * 


750 • 1060 



The program official and lawyer primarily 
responsible for the development of this amend- 
ment are John Simeroth and Taylor Vinson, 
respectively. 

Issued on July 21, 1980. 



Joan Claybrook 
Administrator 

45 FR 49941 
July 28, 1980 



PART 571; S108-PRE 101-102 



PREAMBLE TO AN AMENDMENT TO 
FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 108 

Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment 
(Docket No. 81-17; Notice 2) 



ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This notice amends Saety Standard 
No. 108 to delete the dimensional requirements 
for all headlamp retaining rings. It implements 
the grant of a petition for modification of 
Dimension "K", specified in SAE Standard J571d 
for retaining rings of headlamps. The primary 
purpose of this amendment is to remove a design 
restriction and associated administrative and 
compliance burdens upon the automotive industry. 
The amendment was proposed on October 13, 1981 
{46 F.R. 50394). 

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 10. 1982. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Safety 
Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices and 
Associated Equipment (49 CFR 571.108), 
incorporates by reference SAE Standard J571d 
"Dimensional Specifications for Sealed Beam 
Headlamp Units," June 1976. Toyota Motor Sales, 
USA. Inc. informed NHTSA that it had developed 
a new retaining ring for a four lamp rectangular 
headlamp system which combined the function of 
the previously separate headlamp door (mounting 
ring) and the retaining ring. The new ring is 
lighter in weight by 0.2 kg than the old ring and 
its use makes it easier to replace a headlamp. But 
in order to allow it, Toyota argued that Dimension 
"K" as specified in Figure 8(A) of SAE J571d 
should not be limited to a maximum of 1.52 mm, 
and it petitioned the agency for rulemaking to 
eliminate Dimension K. Having been assured that 
the new design does not interfere with use of a 
mechanical aimer, NHTSA granted the petition. 
Upon its review of Standard No. 108 the agency 
concluded that it should go beyond the scope of the 
petition and that deletion of all retaining ring 



design requirements would not compromise motor 
vehicle safety. This appeared to be one of those 
Federal regulations that can be rescinded, thereby 
relieving a burden, if only a small one, on vehicle 
manufacturers. The necessary compliance and 
associated administrative tasks will be removed 
and therefore implementation of the proposal 
should have a positive economic impact. 
Retaining ring dimensions specified in SAE 
Recommended Practice J1132, applicable to two- 
lamp rectangular headlamp systems, are also 
eliminated. 

In response to the notice of proposed rulemaking 
published on October 13. 1981, the agency received 
six comments, five of which endorsed the agency's 
planned action. The sixth comment, from Hopkins 
Manufacturing Corporation, a producer of 
mechanical aiming devices for headlamps, 
expressed concern that without a limitation on 
Dimension "K", there could be interference 
between the retaining ring and the aiming head, 
thus preventing the use of a mechanical aimer. 
However, the agency has concluded, as did 
several of the commenters. that certain 
performance requirements specified in SAE J580b 
"Sealed Beam Headlamp Assembly." February 
1974, adequately guarantee compatibility between 
the retaining ring and the headlamp. Specifically, 
paragraph S5.1 requires that "Headlamps shall be 
designed so that they may be inspected and aimed 
by mechanical aimers . . . without removal of any 
ornamental trim rings or other parts." This means 
simply that the headlamps, when installed on the 
motor vehicle, must be mechanically aimable. 

The agency has considered thus rulemaking 
action and determined that it is not a major 
regulation under Executive Order 12291 "Federal 
Regulation," or a significant regulation under the 
departmental regulatory policies and procedures. 



PART 571; S108-PRE 103 



and that neither a regulatory impact analysis nor 
a full regulatory evaluation is required. 
Amendment of the standard will impose no 
additional requirements but will allow 
manufacturers flexibility to adopt retaining ring 
designs with dimensional specifications that may 
now be precluded by strict adherence to the SAE 
requirements incorporated in Standard No. 108. 
The cost effects of utilizing the new retaining 
rings would be minimal. 

The agency has also considered the impacts of 
this rule in relation to the Regulatory Flexibility 
Act. NHTSA certifies that amending Standard 
No. 108 to eliminate dimensional requirements 
for retaining rings will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. Accordingly, no regulatory flexibility 
analysis has been prepared. Based on available 
information, the agency believes that few, if any, 
of the retaining ring manufacturers are small 
businesses as that term is defined for purposes of 



the Flexibility Act. Businesses which make or 
install the new retaining rings and small 
organizations and government jurisdictions 
which purchase fleets of motor vehicles will not 
be significantly affected. Retaining rings will 
continue to be required and provided, in most 
instances probably unchanged from current ones. 
The difference in cost of vehicles equipped with 
current retaining rings and those of a different 
design will be insubstantial at most. 

Issued on June 4, 1982. 



Raymond A. Peck, Jr. 
Administrator 



47 F.R. 25149 
June 10, 1982 



PART 571; S108-PRE 104 



PREAMBLE TO AN AMENDMENT TO 
FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 108 

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; 
Motor Vehicle Lighting 

[Docket No. 81-16; Notice 2] 



ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This notice amends Motor Vehicle 
Safety Standard No. 108 to substitute SAE 
Standard J594f for J594e as the referenced 
standard on reflex reflectors. This amendment is 
in response to a petition for rulemaking 
submitted by Motor Vehicle Manufacturers 
Association (MVMA). A notice of proposed 
rulemaking was published on October 13, 1981 (46 
F.R. 50396). The effect of the amendment is to 
increase the diameter of the circumscribing circle 
for the photometric test from 7 to 10 inches. 

DATE: Effective date is December 20, 1982. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Standard 
No. 108 requires that reflex reflectors be 
designed to conform to SAE Standard J594e 
Reflex Reflectors, March 1970. Section J 
"Photometry" of the Standard specifies that 
"reflex reflectors may have any linear or area 
dimensions, but for the photometric test a 
maximum of 12 square inches contained within a 7 
inch diameter circle shall be exposed." In January 
1977 the SAE adopted J594f which increased the 
diameter of the test circle to 10 inches. MVMA 
petitioned the agency to substitute J594f as the 
referenced standard on reflex reflectors aguring 
that it will relieve a design restriction and permit 
greater latitude in reflector design with no 
decrease in safety performance. 

Specifically, MVMA noted that the increase in 
minimum requirements for lens area of rear turn 
signal lamps from 3.5 to 8 inches adopted by 
NHTSA in 1976 has resulted in increased use of 



reflex material in the form of horizontal or 
vertical strips as well as material incorporated 
within the lenses. But some types of designs are 
prohibited by current requirements that would 
be allowable when 12 square inches of reflex 
material are circumscribed by a circle with a 
diameter increased from 7 to 10 inches. The 
performance requirements of this reflective 
material itself would remain unchanged. 

In the proposal NHTSA pointed out the 
following additional differences between the two 
standards. The option of using visual 
measurements for determining photometric 
performance will be eliminated. This change will 
result in a greater comparability of test results 
between manufacturers and NHTSA, which uses 
photometric rather than visual measurements, 
thus reducing the likelihood of disagreements 
when agency tests indicate photometric 
performance does not meet the standard. In 
addition, a new Table I is provided, "Minimum 
Milli-candelas per Incident Lux for Red Reflex 
Reflectors," the current table becoming "lA." 
The new table is the equivalent of the old in 
metric units. Either table may be used, a fact not 
made clear by J594f. 

Nine comments were received on the proposal, 
all of whom supported it. The majority approved 
of the removal of a design restriction. The Traffic 
Control Materials division of 3M Corporation 
suggested updating Federal Specification L-S-300 
which has been revised three times since 
September 1965, the version cited in S4. 1.1.4. 
However, because such an amendment was 
beyond the scope of the original proposal and the 
public has not had an opportunity to comment 



PART 571; S 108-PRE 105 



upon it, this recommendation was not adopted. 

The agency's preliminary examination has 
shown that this rulemaking action is not a major 
regulation under Executive Order 12291 
"Improving Government Regulations," or a 
significant regulation under the Department's 
regulatory policies and procedures, and that a 
regulatory impact analysis is not required. 
Further, the costs impacts will be so minimal that 
preparation of a full regulatory evaluation is not 
warranted. Amendment of the standard will 
impose no additional manufacturer requirements 



but will allow producers flexibility to adopt reflex 
material designs that are now precluded by the 
current requirements of Standard No. 108. The 
cost savings resulting from taking advantage of 
that flexibility would be insubstantial. Although 
visual measurements for determining photometric 
conformance will be eliminated, the cost of 
substituting photometric measures should be 
minimal. NHTSA believes that most manufacturers, 
as the best assurance of compliance, have relied 
on photometric measurements in the past. 
Issued on November 9, 1982. 



Raymond A. Peck, Jr. 
Administrator 
47 F.R. 51883 
November 18, 1982 



PART 571; S 108-PRE 106 



PREAMBLE TO AN AMENDMENT TO 
FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 108 



Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment 
(Docket No. 82-17; Notice 2) 



ACTION: Final rule. 



SUMMARY: This notice amends Safety Standard 
No. 108 to allow motor vehicles to be equipped with 
a new two-lamp rectangular sealed beam headlamp 
system. The individual lamps in the system will be 
smaller than those currently allowed in two-lamp 
systems. The new headlamps have external dimen- 
sions identical to those of headlamps used in four- 
lamp rectangular headlamp systems. The head- 
lamps are required to be designed to conform to 
performance levels of the presently existing 
Federal standards met by other headlamps. 

DATE: Effective date of the amendment is 30 days 
after publication in the Federal Register. Because 
of the necessity of manufacturers to meet tooling 
deadlines, it is found for good cause shown that an 
effective date earlier than 180 days after issuance 
of the rule is in the public interest. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Chrysler Cor- 
poration petitioned for rulemaking to amend 
Standard No. 108 to permit the use of a new, 
smaller, rectangular dual-beam sealed beam head- 
lamp in a two-lamp system. The lamp, which was 
developed by Wagner Electric Corporation, has 
the same external dimensions as the rectangular 
headlamps used in four-lamp systems, and is 
designed to meet the same photometric require- 
ments as the larger lamp currently used in rec- 
tangular two-lamp systems. 

The change was requested by Chrysler in order 
to allow aerodynamic improvements in vehicle 
front end designs which will result in increased fuel 
economy. The current four-lamp system of units of 
identical size is limited in application because of in- 



fringement of the extra pair of headlamps upon the 
amount of grille area required for engine cooling. 
This will become increasingly critical as the front 
edges of cars become more rounded in designs 
planned by the industry for vehicles to be intro- 
duced in the mid-1980's. 

The new system will use halogen bulbs from 
Type 2B headlamps, the reflector from the current 
Type 2A headlamp, and a modified lens. In addi- 
tion, the lamp ground terminal will be rotated 45 
degrees to ensure that Type lA or Type 2 A lamps 
cannot be inserted as replacements. 

To meet the agency's previously expressed con- 
cern over proliferation of headlamp types and the 
consequent possibility that some of them may not 
be readily available, Chrysler's suppliers, Wagner, 
General Electric, and GTE Sylvania, have reported 
that the lamp will be distributed to the field 
through their normal distribution centers and 
marketing channels. Thus, the lamps will be 
available at "well over ten thousand retail sales 
outlets." Service Parts Division at all of Chrysler's 
20 parts depots would stock the new headlamps to 
supply dealers nationwide. 

Because the new headlamp would be derived 
basically from components of current headlamps, 
Chrysler estimated that there will be a "con- 
siderable" cost decrease over the current larger 
halogen dual rectangular lamps. 

Chrysler also argued that the environmental ef- 
fects of the new system are all positive, and include 
reduction in both fuel consumption and raw 
materials used in lamp manufacture. It is aware of 
no alternatives which would produce the same 
level of public benefits. 



PART 571; S 108-PRE 107 



NHTSA granted the Chrysler petition on 
October 8, 1982, and published a notice of proposed 
rulemaking on October 14, 1982 (47 FR 45890). 

The agency, in essence, asked three questions in 
the proposal— whether the performance of a small 
two-lamp system can meet the needs of motor vehi- 
cle safety, whether it would not be better to re- 
quire such a system to "conform" to the specified 
requirements instead of being only "designed to 
conform" with them, and whether the addition of a 
new headlamp type to the existing types would 
over-burden the existing distribution system so 
that replacement headlamps would be difficult to 
find. 

In response to the proposal, NHTSA received 14 
comments, including one from Chrysler. Virtually 
all supported an amendment which would allow the 
new system; virtually all opposed the proposal that 
the new headlamp be required to "conform" to 
specified requirements. 

In response to an earlier notice (Request for com- 
ments, August 31, 1981; 46 Fed. Reg. 43,719) on 
new headlighting systems, several commenters 
had expressed concern about the implications of 
the possible changes for the simplicity and ease of 
manufacturing headlamps. In terms of these con- 
siderations, the optimum headlamp appears to be 
one having a relatively large diameter and a single 
beam. If a headlamp is smaller, contains more than 
one beam or has a noncircular shape, its 
photometries are more difficult to control. Two of 
those parties who had previously criticized the con- 
cept of a system using smaller headlamps, BMW 
and Koito, did not comment on the current pro- 
posal. Volkswagen of America, a previous critic, 
voiced no objection to the smaller headlamp per se, 
though indicating its preference lay in other direc- 
tions. California Highway Patrol concurred with 
the proposal but asked whether the smaller lamp 
could produce as good a road-lighting beam as a 
larger headlamp with the same size filament. 

NHTSA has carefully reviewed all comments. 
The fact that the new smaller headlamp is required 
to meet the same photometric requirements as 
those of other sizes should ensure that roadway 
lighting on either high or low beam is sufficient for 
motor vehicle safety. NHTSA anticipates that 
manufacturers of these headlamps will maintain 
quality controls sufficient to insure that the 
photometries of any lamp chosen at random will 



meet the minimum required for each headlamp, 
even if these controls are more rigorous than those 
required for a four-lamp system. Sealed beam 
lighting technology is well proven in practice, and 
lamps whose dimensions are identical to those 
which would be used in the new headlamp system 
have been produced for almost ten years now. 
Thus, problems inherent in start-up production 
should be reduced to a minimum. NHTSA has con- 
cluded that, in spite of theoretical objections, the 
new lamps should provide equivalent performance 
while allowing manufacturers to improve vehicle 
aerodynamics by locating them to best advantage. 

Commenters expressed almost universal opposi- 
tion to the agency's proposal to require that the 
new lamps "conform" instead of being "designed 
to conform" with the requirements for those 
lamps. Because minor deviations at individual test 
points are not discernible to the naked eye, the 
commenters believed that very little real safety ad- 
vantage would accrue from an approach requiring 
strict adherence to the performance specifications. 
(The agency is not willing to accept this argument 
without further study.) Further, commenters 
argue that the cost of lamps would increase. 
Similarly, the commenters stated that the ad- 
ministrative burden on the agency would increase 
because manufacturers finding individual test 
point failures of a marginal nature would petition 
under Part 556 for determinations that they were 
inconsequential as they relate to motor vehicle 
safety and thus exempt from the statutory require- 
ment for recall and remedy of noncomplying 
vehicles and equipment. These potential problems 
have been avoided under the "design to conform" 
requirements applicable to currently permitted 
headlamp systems since NHTSA has allowed ran- 
dom occasional failures without concluding that a 
lamp is noncompliant. Noting that the Society of 
Automotive Engineers is currently developing a 
headlamp performance standard, General Electric 
recommended that NHTSA review the SAE work 
and consider a new Federal standard instead of at- 
tempting to require strict compliance with existing 
performance requirements. 

After reviewing these comments, NHTSA has 
concluded that if a requirement for strict com- 
pliance is to be introduced, it should be done 
simultaneously for all lamps, not just for one size of 
headlamp. Therefore, the agency has not adopted 
this portion of the proposal at this time but believes 



PART 571; S 108-PRE 108 



that the issue of "conform" versus "design to con- 
form" should be considered in the future as a 
separate issue. 

Because six types of headlamps in four sizes are 
currently permitted under Standard No. 108 and 
being offered in the United States, the agency 
raised the issue of proliferation, i.e., whether per- 
mitting an additional type would lead to replace- 
ment difficulties, either as a result of the failure of 
supply outlets to carry the new size, or as a result 
of the discontinuation of a currently permitted, 
less popular size to make way for the new head- 
lamp. Truck Safety Equipment Institute expressed 
its concern that the new lamp would be available 
only through Chrysler dealerships and therefore 
its cost would tend to be high. 

NHTSA has reviewed the proliferation issue and 
has concluded that the addition of a new type of 
headlamp should not create a problem. Current 
rectangular headlamps received wide availability 
soon after introduction in 1974 and 1977. Given the 
precedent of this tradition of availability, it is 
assumed that a similar pattern will evolve if the 
new lamp is allowed since it is made using parts 
from existing lamps and similar production 
machinery. It is true that it will take time for a sup- 
ply of replacement lamps to become as available as 
current headlamps. However, Chrysler stated that 
its dealers wUl have replacement lamps and that its 
lamp suppliers are prepeired to supply sufficient 



quantities quickly to handle both production and 
field replacement markets. Changing to a new 
design headlamp may cause occasional difficulties 
in the initial period of introduction, but reasonable 
solutions appear to be available to eliminate any 
safety related problems. 

Under the amendment issued today, the new 
headlamp is identified as "2E1", in accordance 
with the lighting code currently used by Standard 
No. 108. The amendment specifies that 2E1 head- 
lamps meet the dimensional specifications for Type 
2A headlamps (SAE Standard J571d) except that 
the ground terminal is rotated clockwise 45 
degrees. The 2E1 headlamp is required also to 
meet all requirements of SAE Standard J579c and 
subreferenced standards applicable to Type 2 head- 
lamp units (these are basically the photometric, 
beam pattern, and beam color requirements, and 
laboratory test specifications). The maximum 
design wattage is 12.8 volts, 70 watts for upper 
beam, and 60 watts for lower beam. The lamp is 
also allowed for use on motorcycles. 

Issued on May 9, 1983. 



Raymond A. Peck, Jr. 
Administrator 



48 F.R. 21955 
May 16, 1983 



PART 571; S 108-PRE 109-110 



PREAMBLE TO AN AMENDMENT TO 
FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 108 



Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment 
(Docket No. 81-11; Notice 3) 



ACTION: Final rule. 



SUMMARY: The purpose of this notice is to amend 
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 to 
allow an optional headlighting system that could 
improve the fuel economy performance of 
automobiles. The amendment follows a notice of 
proposed rulemaking published on January 17, 
1983 (48 FR 1992). 

The amendment is based upon a petition from, 
and is primarily directed toward a type of head- 
lamp system developed by, Ford Motor Company. 
Ford wishes to offer on' certain 1984 model cars a 
semisealed headlamp with a standardized replace- 
able bulb, which it states would conform to a 
proposed set of environmental performance re- 
quirements similar to those adopted by this notice. 

DATE: The amendments made by this notice are 
effective on July 1, 1983. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This notice 
completes rulemaking initiated by the agency's 
publication of a notice of proposed rulemaking 
(NPRM) on new headlighting systems on January 
17, 1983 (48 FR 1992). That proposal was issued 
following the grant of a petition for rulemaking 
submitted on August 28, 1981, by Ford Motor 
Company. 

Ford Petition 
The Ford petition sought an amendment to Stand- 
ard No. 108 to permit the use of a nonfully sealed 
headlamp. To ensure the proper performance of the 
new headlamp, Ford requested the application to it of 
certain sealed beam headlamp performance re- 
quirements and of certain environmental tests. 



Ford's new headlamp consisted of two discrete 
components: a plastic lens bonded to a plastic 
reflector, and a replaceable light source capsule of 
standardized design that is inserted through an 
opening in the rear of the reflector, and sealed by 
an "0-ring" seal on the capsule. Although con- 
toured, the headlamp is mechanically aimable with 
an adapter to the current aiming equipment. Ford 
argued that the possibility of reflector contamina- 
tion is minimized because of the lens /reflector 
bond and the seal at the base of the light source. 

Ford stated that its replaceable bulb lamp was 
developed to assure a high reliability of positioning 
of the filament after repeated replacements of the 
bulb in different lamp bodies, and to ensure tight 
sealing of the capsule into the reflector. Ford 
asserted that it had rejected the European H-4 
design with its multipiece stamped construction as 
unacceptably complex. 

A single piece plastic molding is the foundation 
of Ford's new bulb design. Ford claimed that elec- 
trical socket molding technology has established 
that extremely fine dimensional control ( + .004 
inch) is consistently achievable even at elevated 
temperatures. 

The Ford-type lamp has a bayonet mounting, 
selected because it provided positive "one way 
only" insertion of the bulb into the reflector 
assembly separate from the locking action of the 
retaining device. Twist lock designs currently used 
for signal lamp functions do not provide the precise 
and consistent filament positioning necessary for a 
headlamp assembly. 

Control surfaces are established between the 
socket and mounting hole to provide (1) axial loca- 
tion, (2) surface to surface contact for in-out posi- 



PART 571; S 108-PRE 111 



tioning of filament and (3) a controlled pin location 
for accurate filament position. 

The method chosen for positioning and securing 
the bulb in the plastic molded base utilizes current 
technology such that either optical or dimensional 
filament control techniques are applicable. The 
bulb capsule can be inserted into a "master 
parabola" and illuminated, and the bulb can then 
be adjusted in the capsule using photo cells for op- 
timum filament positioning. An alternative pro- 
cedure would orient the filament relying strictly on 
dimensional location using an optical comparator. 

Ford said in its petition that it believes a sealed, 
unvented assembly is desirable to avoid the prob- 
lem of corrosion. The agency's primary concern 
about the headlamp systems in use in Europe has 
been corrosion developing on the inside and out- 
side surfaces of lamp reflectors after a relatively 
short time in service. Painted steel reflectors were 
most commonly used in Europe, and the lamp 
assemblies were typically vented to the at- 
mosphere through a controlled path. With the 
sealed capsule design, replacement of the bulb may 
be achieved in a manner which Ford thinks pro- 
tects the optic surfaces within the lamp as would be 
the case in sealed beam units. Ford intends to 
fabricate the reflector from corrosion-resistant 
material. 

A single silicone 0-ring provides the seal for the 
bulb. Ford tests have allegedly shown that the 
pressure build-up inside the sealed headlamp cavity 
due to the operating temperatures of the lamp is 
approximately 20 psi. Due to the close tolerances 
of the mating parts and the use of a low durometer 
"0" ring seal which permits sealing across surface 
irregularities, an internal pressure of 100 psi can 
be contained within the lamp body. The efficacy of 
"0" ring seals to contain static pressure is well 
known. 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

In the NPRM, NHTSA proposed three regula- 
tory options that would allow for the use of new 
headlighting systems. Each of these systems would 
have involved the use of two separate components, 
the lens and reflector unit and a replaceable bulb 
unit. Options which were presented were— 

(1) A Ford-type semisealed contoured lamp that 
has a standardized replaceable light source and 
that is designed to meet detailed photometric. 



dimensional and environmental performance re- 
quirements. 

(2) A fully sealed lens reflector unit that could be 
contoured, that has a standardized replaceable 
light source, and that is required to meet standards 
similar to those in Option 1. 

(3) A mechanically aimable unit that has a stand- 
ardized replaceable light source and that is 
designed to meet minimum photometric re- 
quirements. The unit was not to be subject to 
detailed dimensional or environmental require- 
ments as in the other options. The success of this 
option was to depend primarily on the product 
liability system and on use of the agency's defects 
authority to control unsatisfactory lamps. 

Summary of Comments and Decision 

NHTSA received extensive comments on the 
proposal from vehicle and lighting manufacturers 
and the general public. Most commenters favored 
the concept of new headlighting systems, although 
some commenters expressed no preference among 
the options. Those who commented on the options 
tended to favor Option 1, the subject of the Ford 
petition. Some commenters thought that option 
was too design restrictive, permitting a headlamp 
suitable only for one particular size of a two head- 
lamp system and perhaps for only one manufac- 
turer initially. The second choice was Option 3. 
However, both these options were also opposed by 
many commenters. Option 2, the sealed system 
with the replaceable bulb, occasioned few com- 
ments, but most of those were negative. 

The agency has decided that Option 1 is the most 
feasible of the three proposed headlighting con- 
cepts and is adopting it with several modifications 
based on the comments. Since the Ford headlamp 
represents a new lighting technology, the agency 
believes that it is particularly appropriate to apply 
the detailed requirements of Option 1 to promote 
the lamp's safe performance. 

With respect to Option 2, no specific proposals 
were presented to the agency for production of a 
contoured, sealed lens-reflector unit with a 
replaceable bulb. Also, while many of the motor 
vehicle equipment and vehicle manufactiirers com- 
menting on the NPRM favored Option 1, only one 
favored Option 2. Accordingly, the agency rejected 
Option 2. 



PART 571; S 108-PRE 112 



The agency did not adopt Option 3 for several 
reasons. That option would require photometric 
conformance at the time the headlamp was 
manufactured and nothing more. No tests like 
those in Option 1 would be prescribed to ensure 
durability of the photometric performance over the 
life of the lamp. Assurance of continued perform- 
ance would be provided almost solely by com- 
petitive forces of the marketplace, and NHTSA's 
defects authority. However, that authority is 
generally exercised only after safety problems 
have manifested themselves on the road. The 
agency believes that a higher quality of lamp is 
more likely to result if equipment is required to be 
built to certain specified levels of safety rather 
than left to the manufacturer's estimates of poten- 
tial product liability and of the likelihood of the 
agency's discovery of defects and exercising its 
defects authority. 

With the decision to adopt Option 1, the principal 
issue became the efficacy of the performance tests 
in ensuring that the headlamps will perform ade- 
quately in real world conditions. NHTSA believes 
that the tests as adopted would accomplish that 
goal. 

Discussion of Comments 

Designed to conform. Some commenters under- 
stood the proposal as requiring that the new head- 
lamps conform with the applicable requirements 
instead of simply being designed to conform with 
those requirements. The commenters who ad- 
dressed this issue uniformly urged that the latter 
approach be adopted as it already has been for all 
other items of lighting equipment under the stand- 
ard. As the agency indicated in its recent amend- 
ment to Standard No. 108 to permit a new size of 
headlamps requested by Chrysler Corp., the 
agency will address this issue in a separate 
rulemaking proceeding. 

Sequential testing of single lamp. Under 
NHTSA's proposal, a single lamp would have been 
tested sequentially under all of the standard's per- 
formance requirements. Most commenters did not 
favor sequential testing. Opponents objected to it 
on several grounds. From a practical standpoint, 
the time required for sequential testing of a single 
headlamp would be from 6 to 10 weeks. Further, 
laboratories would find it difficult to make efficient 
use of equipment since one facility must be held 



idle awaiting a lamp to finish another stop in the 
test. The agency notes that nonsequential testing 
would facilitate the agency's accurately judging a 
headlamp's level of performance under a particular 
environmental test. Failures could be more easily 
isolated and related to a particular test with non- 
sequential testing. For these reasons, NHTSA has 
decided to eliminate a requirement for sequential 
testing and to specify that a separate lamp be used 
for each test, except that the same lamp must be 
used for the temperature cycle and internal heat 
tests, for the reasons discussed below. 

In addition to retaining certain sealed beam head- 
lamp performance requirements, the amendment 
includes a series of environmental tests to assure 
adequate performance. The tests adopted are: 

(1) Photometry. 

(2) Abrasion. 

(3) Vibration. 

(4) Chemical Resistance. 

(5) Corrosion. 

(6) Dust. 

(7) Temperature Cycle and Internal Heat. 

(8) Humidity. 

(9) Impact. 

Photometry. A headlamp that has not been sub- 
jected to any of the environmental tests is required 
to meet certain SAE photometry requirements: 
S4.6 Photometry of SAE J575 "Test for Motor 
Vehicle Lighting Devices and Components," June 
80; S3.1 Test Voltage and S3.5 Photometric 
Design Requirements, including Figure 3 and 
Table 1 of SAE J579c, December 78, SAE J580 
"Sealed Beam Headlamp Assembly," August 77. 

After a headlamp has been exposed to any of the 
following environmental hazards, abrasion, chemi- 
cal resistance, humidity, dust, and temperature 
cycle /internal heat, it must continue to meet the 
photometric test prescribed by SAE Standard 
J579c. That test is currently a requirement of 
Standard No. 108 for existing headlamp systems. 

Abrasion. Based on fleet field test results, the 
abrasion tests on plastic headlamps appear to be 
particularly critical. Accordingly, a proposed 
NHTSA procedure and an alternative Ford pro- 
cedure were included to generate comment on this 
critical test phase. NH'TSA proposed a test by 
which abrasion resistance would be judged by the 
effect of sand falling on a headlamp lens. 



PART 571; S 108-PRE 113 



The abrasion test was to be required only if a 
proposed headlamp had a plastic lens. This was 
consistent with the agency's abrasion concerns, 
and with the current absence of any abrasion re- 
quirements applicable to existing glass surfaced 
lamp systems. At the end of the abrasion test, 
photometric output was to be measured to assure 
continuing compliance with SAE J579c, December 
78. 

Some commenters stated that the falling sand 
method of testing represents the manner in which 
abrasion actually occurs on headlamp lenses in use, 
and that the test has some "heritage" in an estab- 
lished ASTM procedure. However, opposing com- 
ments suggested that the reproducibility of a sand 
drop test is so poor that the results from different 
test laboratories could not be compared. NHTSA is 
concerned that a performance requirement based 
on that method of testing would not be readily en- 
forceable. 

Ford proposed a test in which steel wool would 
be rubbed against the lens for 11 cycles. It argued 
that the results of its test correlated more closely 
to the manner in which abrasion actually occurs 
than do the results of the falling sand test. Ford's 
data showed similar linear correlations between 
vehicle age and on-the-road development of head- 
lamp haze due to abrasion and between the number 
of steel wool test cycles and the haze on headlamps 
tested under that test. There was no similarity in 
the correlation involving real world experience and 
that between the results of the falling sand test 
and the haze on headlamps resulting from that 
test. Most haze resulting from the falling sand test 
occurred during the first minute of testing. 

Accordingly, the agency has adopted Ford's pro- 
posed test rubbing steel wool against the lens for 
11 cycles, but not Ford's proposed abbreviated 
photometric checks following this test. Glass 
lensed units are exempt from the tests for abrasion 
and impact. 

Vibration. At the conclusion of the proposed 
vibration test, there was not to be any evidence of 
loose or broken parts in the lamp, and the lamp 
was to continue to meet the photometric require- 
ments. Since the proposed vibration test differed 
from the one currently specified in Standard No. 
108 for other items of lighting equipment, the 
agency heeded requests not to have two different 
vibration tests requiring different test equipment. 



Therefore, the agency has amended the rule to 
specify the use of the vibration test specified by 
SAE J575e, the test currently applied to other 
items of lighting equipment. Similarly, as that 
vibration test allows filament fracture, the agency 
has determined that it is not appropriate to require 
photometric conformance following the vibration 
test. 

Chemical resistance test. The proposed chemical 
resistance test involved total immersion of the en- 
tire test lamp in fluids for a period of five minutes, 
storage for 48 hours and then an examination for 
deterioration both in the lamp assembly and the 
photometric performance of the lamp. The pro- 
posed test fluids were gasoline, tar remover, motor 
oil, brake fluid, power steering fluid, windshield 
washer fluid, and antifreeze. 

Most of those who commented on the chemical 
resistance test were opposed to the proposal that 
headlamps be totally immersed for a period of time 
in separate fluids. Opposition was based on the 
argument that this does not reflect actual condi- 
tions in service where a headlamp may come in 
contact with one of the listed fluids while being 
cleaned with a cloth having a variety of chemicals 
on it. Commenters also opposed use of gasoline and 
brake fluid as test fluids, the former primarily on 
the grounds of the effect likely upon a headlamp 
whose lens has already been subjected to the abra- 
sion test, and the latter on the grounds that brake 
fluid, because of its corrosive nature, is not likely 
to be present on a cloth used in cleaning head- 
lamps. 

After due consideration of these comments, the 
agency has decided that total immersion of the 
lamp unit is not necessary since the purpose of the 
chemical resistance test is to ensure that the lens is 
not susceptible to damage by the listed fluids. Ac- 
cordingly, the agency has modified the test to re- 
quire that a headlamp be exposed to the fluids not 
by immersion, but by the more realistic procedures 
of being wiped with a cloth that has been immersed 
in one of the test fluids. 

NHTSA has retained gasoline as a test fluid as it 
is a fluid very likely to be present on a wiping rag. 
The objection to using gasoline because of the 
headlamp's previous testing under the abrasion 
test is moot since the agency has deleted the provi- 
sion for sequential testing of a single headlamp for 
compliance with all environmental tests. In view of 



PART 571; S 108-PRE 114 



the known corrosive effect of brake fluid on vehicle 
finishes, the agency believes that it is less likely 
that headlamps will be exposed to brake fluids than 
any of the other listed fluids. That effect and the 
warnings about brake fluid on containers of that 
fluid make it likely that mechanics will be par- 
ticularly careful about not using brake fluid con- 
taminated rags near any external vehicle surface. 
Therefore, the agency is not including it in the list 
of test fluids. 

In concert with its elimination of sequential 
testing under the environmental tests, the agency 
is also eliminating the requirement that a single 
headlamp be exposed to each of the listed fluids. 
The agency believes that exposing a particular 
headlamp to only a single fluid will facilitate deter- 
mining the performance capabilities of a headlamp 
when exposed to that fluid. 

Corrosion test. The corrosion test that was pro- 
posed involved subjecting the test lamp to a salt 
spray test in accordance with ASTM B 117-73 
"Method of Salt Spray (Fog) Testing" for a period 
of 240 hours, consisting of ten successive 24-hour 
intervals. During each interval, the headlamp was 
to be exposed for 23 hours to the salt spray and 
then allowed to dry for an hour. At the end of the 
test period, compliance with the photometric re- 
quirements was to be determined. Further, the 
proposal provided that there could not be any 
evidence of internal or external corrosion more 
than an eighth of an inch from sharp edges, or any 
corrosion, on the terminals or elsewhere, which 
would involve loss of function. 

Many commenters were concerned with the 
stringency of the test and the criteria. One com- 
menter noted that the proposed test would not 
achieve the objective of ensuring reflectors with 
good corrosion resistance because the test does not 
take into account a situation in which a bulb may be 
removed for an extended period of time. 

NHTSA is satisfied that the requirements are 
reasonable but believes that the test should be ad- 
justed to reflect the possibility of bulb removal for 
an extended period of time or under highly humid 
conditions. Accordingly, the corrosion test adopted 
requires removal of the bulb for each one-hour 
period in which the salt spray is deactivated. This 
should introduce a salt atmosphere on the inside of 
the lamp. However, as this may create excessive 
salt deposits on the lens, not easily removed, there 



is no requirement to measure photometric re- 
quirements after the test period. The strictures 
against corrosion, of course, remain. 

Dust test. There was general agreement on main- 
taining the dust test as proposed, in which fine 
powdered dust is diffused through a test box for a 
period of 5 hours. Accordingly, that test is adopted 
without change. 

Temperature cycle, thermal shock, and internal 
heat tests. The principal changes made in the test 
procedures as adopted concern the temperature 
cycle, thermal shock, and internal heat tests. As 
proposed, a temperature cycle test was required 
from -40°F to 176°F for 10 complete cycles. The 
headlamp was not to show any evidence of specific 
adverse effects. 

In the proposed thermal shock test, the head- 
lamp was to be energized on its highest wattage 
filament for 45 minutes, then plunged into ice 
water (32°F) for five minutes. The headlamp was 
to be required to show no evidence of fractures, 
delamination or entry of water in liquid form after 
this test. 

As proposed, the internal heat test provided that 
the lens was to be coated with simulated road dirt 
consisting of Zaccharini dust and water, to reduce 
light transmission to 25% of the original. No lens 
distortion was to be permitted at the end of such 
test. 

The main issue associated with the related tests 
regarding temperature cycle, thermal shock and 
internal heat is the relationship between the tests 
and the expected performance under actual oper- 
ating conditions. Two basic aspects of performance 
are addressed by these tests. One is the integrity of 
the construction of the lamp. This is typically 
tested by cycling a lamp between a hot and a cold 
temperature. The second aspect is the permanence 
of the shape and size of the lens, reflector, and fila- 
ment under high temperature conditions. Any 
changes in this geometry should be noticeable from 
the lens distortion measurements and photometric 
tests conducted after exposure to such conditions. 

As for the first aspect, most commenters who ad- 
dressed the temperature range in the temperature 
cycle test indicated that the integrity of lamp con- 
struction can be tested adequately with a smaller 
temperature cycle range than the -40°F to 
-i-176°F range that was proposed. Accordingly, 
the agency adopted a narrower range of - 30°F to 



PART 571; S 108-PRE 115 



■ { 



+ 120°F. As for the second aspect, a minima! 
amount of lens warpage, .118 inch, is allowed in 
the final rule since it is not practicable to insist that 
plastic lenses remain absolutely warpage free. 
That small amount of distortion should not pose 
any safety problem since the lamp must still meet 
photometric conformance requirements. Finally, 
in a change from the proposal, the rule allows any 
means including Zaccharini dust to reduce light 
transmittance to 25 ± 2% of the output originally 
measured. 

Headlamps will still be subjected to sufficiently 
high temperatures to ensure adequate perform- 
ance. NHTSA understands that plastic materials 
currently used in headlamps can begin to lose 
strength in high ambient temperatures when the 
lens is very dirty. The internal heat test will, it is 
believed, generate temperatures seen in this condi- 
tion. 

The agency has decided to delete the proposed 
thermal shock test. That test is redundant, par- 
ticularly because the agency has decided also that 
the temperature cycle and internal heat tests 
should be linked so as to require a single headlamp 
to demonstrate compliance with both of them. The 
temperature cycle test will not only test headlamps 
at extreme temperatures likely to be encountered 
in the real world, but also to subject them to a 
substantial change in temperature in a several 
hour period. Even with the narrower range 
adopted in this notice, headlamps will be required 
to maintain their performance when subjected to a 
much greater temperature change than headlamps 
will experience in the real world. 

Humidity test. For the humidity test, the agency 
proposed that the headlamp was to be operated in a 
controlled environment of 100°F and humidity 
from 80 to 100% and was not to show any evidence 
of moisture, fogging, or delamination, after a 
period of 240 hours during which the headlamp is 
turned on and off. Although some commenters 
believed that some moisture should be allowed as a 
result of the test, NHTSA has decided that head- 
lamps should be constructed so that no moisture 
can collect. However, the agency believes that a 
lesser period of time is sufficient to demonstrate 
compliance and the humidity test has been adopted 
with a period of 120 hours. 

Impact test. The agency proposed an impact test 
which would require a plastic lens to withstand a 



single impact by a steel ball bearing 1.76 oz. (50 
grams) in weight and dropped from a distance of 
15.75 inches (40 cm.) above the lens. This test has 
been adopted as proposed. 

Out-of-focus and bulb deflection tests. Two tests, 
an out-of-focus test and a bulb deflection test, were 
proposed to ensure the proper placement of the 
bulb filament. The out-of-focus test, not part of the 
Ford petition, was similar to that currently re- 
quired of motorcycle headlamps which incorporate 
a replaceable bulb. The bulb deflection test was 
proposed by both NHTSA and Ford to simulate the 
effect of rough handling which could affect the bulb 
filament alignment, such as might occur during in- 
sertion of a replacement bulb. The agency believes 
that it is redundant to have two tests to ensure 
proper filament placement. That placement is a 
function of bulb fit and filament position. The lat- 
ter is assured by the narrow tolerances in the re- 
quired bulb specifications and the former by the 
bulb deflection test. Accordingly, the agency has 
decided not to adopt an out-of-focus test. 

Provision of bulb with new vehicle. NHTSA also 
proposed that manufacturers be required to 
provide a replacement bulb with every vehicle 
equipped with the new headlighting system. 
Several commenters opposed this requirement as 
unnecessary. This proposal is adopted but 
restricted to those motor vehicles manufactured 
during the first year in which the new amendments 
are effective. The establishment of that fixed 
period is premised on introduction of the new 
Ford-type headlamps near the beginning of that 
period. Based on that premise, the agency antici- 
pates that replacement bulbs should be readily 
available through normal distribution channels at 
the end of the one year period. If the agency's 
premise proves false or distribution problems 
otherwise arise, the agency will consider extending 
this period. 

Testing of replacement headlamps. Each lens- 
reflector unit manufactured as replacement equip- 
ment would also have to meet the performance re- 
quirements of replaceable bulb headlamps when a 
standardized replaceable light source is inserted. 
This requirement is adopted as proposed. 

Adapter for aiming device. Because most 
existing mechanical aimers are not designed for 
headlamps with contoured lenses, the agency pro- 
posed to require that an adapter to facilitate aim- 



PART 571; S 108-PRE 116 



ing be furnished with each vehicle manufactured 
during the first model year in which replaceable 
bulb headlamps are included as standard equip- 
ment. The adapter specified has been designed by 
Ford for this purpose. After that time, an adjust- 
able adapter, also designed by Ford, should be 
available for mechanical aimers such that all con- 
toured lenses could be aimed by reference to the 
pad aiming dimensions. Some commenters argued 
that the agency should not require mechanical aim- 
ing and thus should not adopt the requirement con- 
cerning adapters. The agency believes that requir- 
ing mechanical aiming is appropriate since most 
aimers used in this country are mechanical. The 
adapter requirement has been adopted for motor 
vehicles manufactured between July 1, 1983, and 
June 30, 1984, and equipped with the new head- 
lamps. As in the case of the period established for 
provision of a replacement bulb with new vehicles, 
the agency will monitor the production of head- 
lamps under the option adopted by this notice and 
consider making any necessary adjustments in the 
end date of the period. 

Distortion of plastic lenses. Because Ford in- 
tends to construct its lamps of plastic, lens distor- 
tion appeared to be another important issue. 
Elevated headlamp operating temperatures caused 
by dirt on the lens could exceed the thermal limit of 
some plastics and result in distortion. NHTSA's 
proposal and amendment disting^uish between 
lamps of plastic and glass, not prohibiting use of 
the one or requiring the other. However, a head- 
lamp using plastics would have to be certified as 
meeting the currently required tests for plastics of 
SAE J576c, including a heat test and the 3-year 
outdoor exposure test (now most generally con- 
ducted as a simulated equivalent). 

Other issues. Two additional issues of major 
concern to a number of commenters were the sug- 
gestion that Option 1 was excessively design 
restrictive and the belief that greater considera- 
tion needed to be given to the use of the H4 bulb in 
the interest of international harmonization. 

Standard No. 108 already contains many provi- 
sions substantially affecting design because of the 
necessity to standardize lighting equipment for the 
purpose of ensuring the ready availability of 
replacement lights. In recognition of the complex- 
ity of the proposed design dimensions of the stand- 
ardized replacement light source, NHTSA has 



eliminated some of the proposed specifications. In 
order to allow manufacturers complete freedom in 
the exterior design of the lamp, however, the light 
source must be standardized to avoid proliferation. 
The H4 bulb was not included in the NPRM 
because NHTSA concluded that the bulb presented 
in the Ford petition was superior in design. The 
close fit of the bulb capsule and reflector socket (to 
prevent misaim from an out-of-position filament) 
and the 0-ring seal were especially important in 
the agency's view. WTiile the final rule does not 
harmonize light source, it will produce cost savings 
by allowing manufacturers to employ the same 
front end sheet metal for all markets. 

One manufacturer expressed concern that 
NHTSA's allowance of the Option 1 system would 
mean that the agency would not consider petitions 
for the adoption of additional headlighting 
systems. The agency does not agree that new 
lighting concepts will be foreclosed from con- 
sideration. Each new concept will be judged on its 
merits. 

Impact Analyses 

NHTSA has considered this rule and has deter- 
mined that it is not major within the meaning of 
Executive Order 12291, "Federal Regulation" or 
significant under Department of Transportation 
regulatory policies and procedures, as its adoption 
does not require any person to change current 
practices under the standard. A regulatory evalua- 
tion has been prepared and placed in the docket. (A 
free copy of this document can be obtained from 
the Docket Section.) The rule will not impose any 
additional requirements but will permit manufac- 
turers greater flexibility in the design of headlight- 
ing systems and adjacent exterior vehicle surfaces. 
Use of this flexibility will allow improvements in 
safety, aerodynamic efficiency and fuel economy. 
The extent of such improvement is dependent on 
the extent to which manufacturers take advantage 
of the new headlamp designs permitted by the 
option. 

Safety benefits. The agency has determined that 
use of the replacement bulb headlamp has the 
potential to provide several safety benefits as well 
as increase fuel economy through reducing aero- 
dynamic drag and vehicle weight. One such poten- 
tial benefit is that the aerodynamic shape of the 
lens may aid in keeping the lens cleaner and thus 



PART 571; S 108-PRE 117 



the light output higher. Further, the easy replace- 
ment of the bulb may result in faster replacement 
of burned out headlamps. 

Energy saving benefits. Based on testing by 
Ford, it appears that use of the replaceable bulb 
headlamp would make possible a 2 percent reduc- 
tion in aerodynamic drag. The slight weight reduc- 
tion that could be achieved through use of plastics 
and the reduced aerodynamic drag would produce 
an average savings of 26 gallons over the life of a 
vehicle. Together, these quantifiable benefits could 
provide savings of $4.00 per vehicle per year. 

Costs. The safety benefits could, of course, be 
offset if in those instances in which fractures do 
occur, the economic costs of replacement were 
prohibitive. Concerns regarding this possibility 
were raised by some commenters. However, the 
agency's analysis does not indicate that the 
replacement costs would be prohibitive. The 
average installed cost for replacing today's 
halogen sealed beam unit is approximately $20. 
The same figure for a replaceable bulb lamp com- 
plete with bulb would be about $55 according to in- 
formation provided by Ford. Corning, however, 
estimates that the cost could be as high as $80. 

The agency estimates that the initial consumer 
cost is $19 per car or $2 per year. The average an- 
nual incremental replacement cost to the vehicle 
owner is believed to range between $1 and $3 per 
lamp depending on the amount of stone damage 
experienced by the lamp. Therefore, the incremen- 
tal annual consumer cost is believed to range from 
a cost of $3 to $5 per car per year. Considering the 
benefit of $4, the net consumer cost is estimated to 
range from a saving of $1 to a cost of $1 per car per 
year. 

NHTSA has concluded that this rule will not 
have a significant impact on the human environ- 
ment. The lamps that will be manufactured pur- 
suant to the rule are expected to be lighter, thus 
slightly reducing the overall material content of 
the automobile. This would have a small positive ef- 
fect on the environment. No adverse impact on 
safety is anticipated, although as noted above the 
greater resistance of plastic facing to fracture in 
on-road use could produce incremental safety 
benefits by reducing the number of occasions in 
which fractures result in loss of illumination. 

The agency has also considered the impacts of 
this rule under the Regulatory Flexibility Act. I 



certify that this rule will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. Accordingly, no regulatory flexibility 
analysis has been prepared. Manufacturers of 
motor vehicles and headlamps, those affected by 
the rule, are generally not small businesses within 
the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. 
Further, these manufacturers would be affected 
only to the extent that they elected to take advan- 
tage of the new headlighting option that is 
established by the rule. The number of different 
components in the inventories of headlamp 
distributors will increase, but not to the extent that 
any significant problem will be created. Finally, 
small organizations and governmental jurisdic- 
tions would be affected only to the extent that they 
choose to buy vehicles equipped with the new head- 
lamps. The organizations and jurisdictions making 
that choice would not be significantly affected by 
the price of the new headlamps. 

Because motor vehicle manufacturers must 
make timely decisions with respect to product 
plans for the 1984-model year, it is hereby found 
that an effective date earlier than 180 days after is- 
suance of the rule is in the public interest. The rule 
is effective July 1, 1983. 

PART 571— [AMENDED] 

§571.108 [Amended] 

In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR 
571.108, Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, 
Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equip- 
ment, is amended as follows: 

1. Section S3 Definitions is amended by adding 
the following definitions so that all definitions in 
that section are in alphabetical order: 

"Headlamp test fixture" means a device de- 
signed to support a replaceable bulb headlamp in 
the test position specified in the laboratory tests in 
S4. 1.1.36(d), and whose mounting hardware and 
components are those necessary to operate the 
headlamp as installed in a motor vehicle. 

"Replaceable bulb headlamp" means a headlamp 
comprising a bonded lens and reflector assembly, 
and a standardized replaceable light source. 

"Seasoning" means a process of energizing the 
filament of a headlamp, at design voltage, for a 
period of time equal to 1 percent of average rated 
laboratory life. 



PART 571; S 108-PRE 118 



"Standardized replaceable light source" means 
an assembly of a headlamp bulb, base, and ter- 
minals, as described in Figure 1. 

2. New Sections S4.1.1.36, S4.1.1.37, S4.1.1.38, 
S4.1.1.39 and S4.1.1.40 are added to read as 
follows: 

S4.1.1.36. Instead of being equipped with a 
headlighting system specified in Table I or Table 
III, a passenger car, multipurpose passenger vehi- 
cle, truck, or bus manufactured on or after July 1, 
1983, may be equipped with two replaceable bulb 
headlamps which are designed to conform to the 
following requirements: 

(a) (1) Each replaceable bulb headlamp shall in- 
clude components which are designed to conform 
to the applicable specifications of paragraph 
S4. 1.1.38 and Figure S—SpecificatioTis For The 
Standardized Replaceable Light Source, including 
filament location, base and socket dimensions, 
electrical connector dimensions, and maximum 
design wattage. 

(2) The exterior face of each replaceable bulb 
headlamp lens shall have three pads which meet 
the requirements of Figure 4, Dimensional 
Specifications for Location of Aiming Pads on 
Replaceable Bulb Headlamp Units, and which 
form an aiming plane for mechanically adjusting 
and inspecting headlamp aim. The exterior lens 
face shall have molded into it the specific set- 
tings applicable to that headlamp as designed to 
be installed in the vehicle, for each of the two ad- 
justable legs of the aiming device loctxting plate; 
e.g., "IIH 17V" requires the horizontal aiming 
pad leg to be set in position 11, and the vertical 
aiming pad leg to be set in position 17. 

(b) Each replaceable bulb headlamp shall meet 
the following sections of the specified SAE Stand- 
ards and Recommended Practices: 

(1) Section 4.6-Photometry of SAE J575 
"Tests for Motor Vehicle Lighting Devices and 
Components" June 80. 

(2) Section 3.1— Test Voltage, and Section 
3.5— Photometric Design Requirements includ- 
ing Figure 3 and Table 1 of SAE J579c "Sealed 
Beam Headlamp Units for Motor Vehicles" 
December 1978, except that the aiming plane on 
the lens shall be at horizontal and vertical 
distances to the photometer axis as inscribed on 
the lens of a replaceable bulb headlamp. 



(3) Section 5— General Requirements, Section 
6— Design Requirements and Tests (to the extent 
listed below), Section 6.1— Aiming Adjustment 
Test, Section 6.2— Inward Force Test, and Sec- 
tion 6.4-Connector Tests of SAE J580 "Sealed 
Beam Headlamp Assembly" August 1979. 

(c) A headlamp with a glass lens need not meet 
the abrasion resistance test specified in S6.2, nor 
the impact test specified in S6.ll. 

(d) When tested according to any of the pro- 
cedures indicated in subparagraphs (1) through (8), 
a replaceable bulb headlamp shall meet the ap- 
propriate requirement: 

(1) After an abrasion test conducted in ac- 
cordance with S6.2, the headlamp shall meet 
the photometric requirements of SAE J579c, 
"Sealed Beam Headlamp Units for Motor 
Vehicles" December 1978. 

(2) After a vibration test conducted in accord- 
ance with S6.3, there shall be no evidence of 
loose or broken parts visible without magnifica- 
tion, except that the filament need not be un- 
broken. 

(3) After a chemical resistance test involving 
exposure to any of the fluids listed in S6.4, there 
shall be no surface deterioration, coating 
delamination, fractures, deterioration of bond- 
ing materials, color bleeding or color pick-up visi- 
ble without magnification, and the headlamp 
shall meet the photometric requirements of SAE 
J579c, "Sealed Beam Headlamp Units for Motor 
Vehicles" December 1978. 

(4) After a corrosion test conducted in accord- 
ance with S6.5, there shall be no evidence of ex- 
ternal or internal corrosion or rust visible 
without magnification. Loss of adhesion of any 
applied coating shall not occur more than .125 
inch (3.2 mm) from any sharp edge on the inside 
or outside. Corrosion may occur on terminals 
provided there is no voltage drop greater than 3 
percent from that measured before the test when 
measured per paragraph 6.4 of SAE J580 
August 1979. 

(5) After a dust test conducted in accordance 
with S6.6, the headlamp shall meet the photo- 
metric requirements of SAE J579c, "Sealed 
Beam Headlamp Units for Motor Vehicles" 
December 1978. 



PART 571; S 108-PRE 119 



(6) The headlamp shall first meet the require- 
ments of paragraph (d) (6) (A) and then those of 
paragraph (d) (6) (B). 

(A) After a temperature cycle test con- 
ducted in accordance with S6.7.1, the head- 
lamp shall show no evidence of delamination, 
fractures, entry of moisture or deterioration of 
bonding material, color bleeding, warpage or 
deformation visible without magnification, or 
lens warpage greater than .118 inch (3 mm) 
when measured perpendicular to the aiming 
plane at the point of intersection of the 
mechanical axis with the exterior surface of 
the lens, and it shall meet the photometric re- 
quirements of SAE J579c, "Sealed Beam 
Headlamp Units for Motor Vehicles" 
December 1978. 

(B) After an internal heat test conducted in 
accordance with S6.7.2, there shall be no lens 
warpage greater than .118 inch (3 mm) when 
measured perpendicular to the aiming plane at 
the point of intersection of the mechanical axis 
with the exterior surface of the lens, and it 
shall meet the photometric requirements of 
SAE J579c, "Sealed Beam Headlamp Units 
for Motor Vehicles" December 1978. 

(7) After a humidity test conducted in accord- 
ance with S6.8, the inside of the headlamp shall 
show no evidence of delamination or moisture, 
fogging or condensation visible without magni- 
fication, and the headlamp shall meet the photo- 
metric requirements of SAE JB79c, "Sealed 
Beam Headlamp Units for Motor Vehicles" 
December 1978. 

(8) After an impact test on a headlamp with a 
plastic lens conducted in accordance with 86.11, 
there shall not be any fracture of the adhesion of 
lens coating or delamination of materials visible 
without magnification, and the lens shall not be 
broken, cracked, or chipped. 

54.1 .1 .37 Each lens-reflector unit manufactured 
as replacement equipment for a replaceable bulb 
headlamp system shall conform to the require- 
ments of S4.1.1.36 when a standardized replace- 
able light source is inserted in it. 

54.1.1.38 Each standardized replaceable light 
source shall conform to the following require- 
ments: 

(a) A silicone 0-ring shall be provided. 



(b) The bulb portion of the standardized replace- 
able light source shall meet the requirements in 
paragraph (b) (1) through (b) (6) of this section. 

(1) The general specifications of the bulb shall 
be: 

Low Beam High Beam 

Watts @ 12.8 V 45 65 

Lumens (without black cap) 

@ 12.8 V 1067 ±71/2% 1736±7V8% 

Average Life @ 14.0 V 320 Hrs. 150 Hrs. 

(2) The bulb filaments shall be subject to 
seasoning prior to wattage and lumens measure- 
ment. 

(3) Wattage and lumens measurements shall 
be made with the direct current test voltage 
regulated within one quarter of one percent. 

(4) Except for reference dimensions, and 
unless otherwise specified, a general tolerance of 
±.004 in. (0.10 mm) shall apply to all linear 
dimensions and ± 1°.00' shall apply to all angular 
dimensions. 

(5) Bulb, lead wires and /or terminals shall be 
installed in the base so as to provide an airtight 
seal. 

(6) After a bulb deflection test conducted in ac- 
cordance with S7, the permanent deflection of 
the glass envelope of each standardized replace- 
able light source shall not exceed .005 inch (.13 
mm) in the direction of the applied force in the 
base. 

54.1.1.39 Each motor vehicle manufactured on 
or after July 1, 1983, and before July 1, 1984, 
which is equipped with a replaceable bulb head- 
lamp system shall also be provided with a spare 
standardized replaceable light source as original 
equipment for such vehicle. 

54.1.1.40 The lens of each replaceable bulb 
headlamp that conforms with this standard, and 
the side of the base of each standardized replace- 
able light source shall be marked with the symbol 

"D 
"DOT" or which shall constitute a certifica- 

rptt 

tion that the headlamp or light source conforms 
to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety 
standards. 



PART 571; S 108-PRE 120 



3. New sections S6, S7, and S8 are added to 
read: 

S6. Tests and procedures for replaceable bulb 
headlamps. When tested according to the pro- 
cedures below, each replaceable bulb headlamp 
shall meet the requirements of S4. 1.1. 36(b) and (d). 

56.1 Photometry. A headlamp shall be tested ac- 
cording to Section S3. 5, Photometric Design Re- 
quirements of SAE Standard J579c, "Sealed Beam 
Headlamp Units for Motor Vehicles" December 
1978, after the tests specified in S6.2, S6.4, S6.6, 
S6.7(a), S6.7(b) and S6.8. 

56.2 Abrasion, (a) A headlamp shall be mounted 
in the abrasion test fixture in the manner indicated 
in Figure 5 with the lens facing upward. 

(b) An abrading pad meeting the requirements 
in paragraph (c) (1) through (c) (4) of this section 
shall be cycled back and forth (1 cycle) for 11 cycles 
at 4+0.8 in. (10 cm ±2 cm) per second over at least 
80 percent of the lens surface, including all the 
area between the upper and lower aiming pads, but 
not including lens covers and edges. 

(c) (1) The abrading pad shall be not less than 
1.0 ±.04 in. (2.5 cm±.l cm) wide, constructed of 
0000 steel wool, and rubber cemented to a rigid 
base shaped to the same vertical contour of the 
lens. The "grain" of the pad shall be perpendicular 
to the direction of motion. 

(2) The abrading pad support shall be equal in 
size to the pad and the center of the support sur- 
face shall be within ± .08 in. ( ±2 mm) of the lens 
surface. 

(3) The density of the abrading pad shall be 
such that when the pad is mounted to its support 
and is resting unweighted on the lens, the base of 
the pad shall be no closer than .125 in. (3.2 mm) 
to the lens at its closest point. 

(4) When mounted on its support and resting 
on the lens of the test headlamp, the abrading 
pad shall then be weighted such that a pad 
pressure of 2.0 ± .15 psi (14 ± 1 KPa) exists at the 
center and perpendicular to the face of the lens. 

(d) A pivot shall be used if it is required to follow 
the contour of the lens. 

(e) Unused steel wool shall be used for each test. 

56.3 Vibration. A vibration test shall be con- 
ducted according to the procedures in SAE Stand- 
ard J575e, "Tests for Motor Vehicle Lighting 
Devices and Components" August 1970, and those 



set forth in paragraphs (a) through (c) of this sec- 
tion. 

(a) The table on the adapter plate is of sufficient 
size to contain completely the test fixture base 
with no overhang. 

(b) The direction of vibration is the vertical axis 
of the headlamp as mounted on the vehicle. 

(c) The filament is cold (not energized). 

56.4 Chemical resistance, (a) The entire ex- 
terior lens surface of the fixtured headlamp and 
top surface of the lens-reflector joint shall be wiped 
once to the left and once to the right with a 6-inch 
square soft cotton cloth (with pressure equally ap- 
plied) which has been saturated once in a container 
with 2 ounces of one of the test fluids listed in 
paragraph (b) of this section. The lamp shall be 
wiped within 5 seconds after removal of the cloth 
from the test fluid. 

(b) The test fluids are: 

(1) gasoline— unleaded 89 octane (R-t-M) or 

2 
above used per OSHA Std. 29 CFR 1910-106- 
Handling Storage and Use of Flammable Com- 
bustible Liquids. 

(2) tar remover (petroleum base with Xylene). 

(3) power steering fluid. 

(4) windshield washer fluid consisting of 1.5% 
monethinalamine with the remainder 50% con- 
centrations of methanol /distilled water by 
volume. 

(5) antifreeze (50% concentration of ethylene 
glycol /distilled water by volume). 

(c) After the headlamp has been wiped with the 
test fluid, it shall be stored in designed operating 
attitude for 48-hours at a temperature of 73°F + 7° 
(23°C±4°) and a relative humidity of 30 ±10 per- 
cent. At the end of the 48-hour period, the head- 
lamp shall be wiped clean with a soft dry cotton 
cloth and visually inspected. 

56.5 Corrosion. The headlamp, unfixtured and 
in its designed operating attitude with all drain 
holes, breathing devices or other designed open- 
ings in their normal operating positions, shall be 
subjected to a salt spray (fog) test in accordance 
with ASTM B117-73, "Method of Salt Spray 
(FOG) Testing," for a period of 240 hours, con- 
sisting of ten successive 24-hour intervals. During 
each interval, the headlamp shall be exposed for 23 



PART 571; S 108-PRE 121 



hours to the salt spray, which shall not be activated 
for the 24th hour. The bulb shall be removed during 
the one hour of salt spray deactivation and 
reinserted for the start of the next test cycle. 

56.6 Diost. The headlamp, mounted on a test fix- 
ture, with all drain holes, breathing devices or 
other designed openings in their normal operating 
positions, shall be positioned within a cubical box, 
with inside measurements of 35.4 in. (900 mm) on 
each side or larger if required for adequate wall 
clearance, i.e., a distance of at least 5.9 in. (150 
mm) between the headlamp and any wall of the 
box. The box shall contain 9.9 lb. (4.5 kg) of fine 
powdered cement which conforms to the ASTM 
C 150-77 specification for Portland Cement. Every 
15 minutes, the cement shall be agitated by com- 
pressed air or fan blower(s) by projecting blasts of 
air for a two-second period in a downward direc- 
tion so that the cement is diffused as uniformly as 
possible throughout the entire box. This test shall 
be continued for five hours after which the exterior 
surfaces of the headlamp shall be wiped clean. 

56.7 Temperature and internal heat tests. 

56.7.1 Temperature cycle. A headlamp, 
mounted on a headlamp test fixture, shall be ex- 
posed to 10 complete consecutive thermal cycles 
having the thermal cycle profile shown in Figure 6. 
During the hot cycle, the highest wattage filament 
in the headlamp shall be energized at design 
voltage commencing at point "A" of Figure 6 and 
de-energized at Point "B." Separate or single test 
chambers may be used to generate the tempera- 
ture environment described by the thermal cycle 
profile. All drain holes, breathing devices or other 
designed openings of the headlamp shall be in their 
normal operating positions. 

56.7.2 Internal heat. 

(a) After its lens surface has been cleaned, the 
photometric output on upper beam of a headlamp 
that has been tested according to S6.7.1 is 
measured. 

(b) The lens surface of the headlamp that would 
normally be exposed to road dirt shall be sprayed 
uniformly with any appropriate mixture of dust 
and water or other material to reduce the photo- 
metric output at the test point H-V of the lamp to 
25% ±2% of the output originally measured in the 
high beam photometric test under paragraph (b) of 
S4.1.1.36. Such reduction shall be determined 



under the same conditions under which the original 
measurement was made. 

(c) After the determination has been made that 
the photometric output of the lamp has been re- 
duced as specified in S6.7.2, the lamp and its 
mounting hardware shall be mounted in an en- 
vironmental test chamber in the manner similar to 
that indicated in Figure 7 "Dirt-Ambient Test 
Setup." The headlamp shall be soaked for one hour 
at a temperature of 95 °F (35 °C) and then be 
energized for one hour in a still air condition, 
allowing the temperature to rise from 95 °F (35 °C). 

(d) The lamp shall be returned to the room am- 
bient temperature, 73±7°F (23±4°C) and relative 
humidity of 30 ±10%. The lens shall then be 
cleaned. Photometric output of the lamp on high 
beam shall be determined according to S6.1. 

56.8 Humidity, (a) The headlamp, mounted on 
a test fixture, shall be placed in a controlled en- 
vironment consisting of a temperature of 
100°F±9° (38°C±5°) with a relative humidity of 
90% ±10%. All drain holes, breathing devices, and 
other designed openings shall be in their normal 
operating positions. The headlamp shall be sub- 
jected to 20 consecutive 6-hour test cycles. In each 
cycle, it shall be energized at design voltage on the 
highest wattage filament contained in the device 
for 1 hour and then de-energized for 5 hours. After 
completion of the last cycle, the lamp shall be 
soaked for 1 hour at 73 °F (20 °C) and a relative 
humidity of 30% ±10% before it is removed for 
photometric testing. The headlamp shall be tested 
for photometries at 10 ±1 minutes following com- 
pletion of the humidity test. 

56.9 Impact. The headlamp shall be rigidly 
mounted in a headlamp test fixture on the seating 
lugs with the mechanical axis (bulb socket axis) 
vertical, and the lens upward. The seating plane of 
the test fixture shall consist of oakwood 0.5 inch 
(13 mm) thick. One impact shall be delivered to the 
center of the lens on the mechanical axis using a 
steel ball bearing with a diameter of .9055 in. (23 
mm) weighing 1.76 oz. (50 grams), dropped freely 
from a distance of 15.75 in. (40 cm) from the bot- 
tom of the ball to the surface of the lens, at the in- 
tersection of the ball trajectory and the mechanical 
axis of the headlamp. 

S7. Deflection test for replaceable bulb. Each 
replaceable bulb shall meet the requirements of 
S4. 1.1.38(b) (6) when tested in the following man- 



PART 571; S 108-PRE 122 



ner. With the bulb rigidly mounted in a fixture in a 
manner indicated in Figure 8, apply a force of 
4.0 ±0.1 lb. (17.8 ±4N) perpendicular to the 
longitudinal axis of the glass envelope and perpen- 
dicular to, and in a line intersecting, the lateral 
axis of the low beam filament. The force shall be 
applied to the outside surface of the glass envelope 
using a rod w^ith a hard rubber tip with a minimum 
spherical radius of .039 in. (1 mm). 

S8. Aiming device locating plate for replaceable 
bulb headlamps. Each motor vehicle manufactured 
on or after July 1, 1983, and before July 1, 1984, 
which is equipped with a replaceable bulb head- 
lamp system shall be furnished with a Headlamp 
Aiming Device Locating Plate, conforming to: 

(a) The general requirements of SAE J602, Oc- 
tober 1980 "Headlamp Aiming Device for 
Mechanically Aimable Sealed Beam Headlamp 
Units," and Figure 9, except that the general and 
specific references in that standard to sealed beam 
headlamp units shall be read as applicable to 
replaceable bulb headlamps, and references in that 
standard to dimensions for headlamp aiming 
device locating plates shall be read in reference to 
the dimensions specified in this section. 

(b) (1) If a suction cup is used to retain a 
mechanical aiming device to the headlamp unit, the 
overall diameter of the suction cup shall not exceed 
2.8 in. (71 mm). The suction cup assembly shall be 
capable of securing the aiming device to a smooth 



lens surface angled up to 30 degrees universally 
from a transverse plane perpendicular to the H-V 
axis of the lamp. 

(2) The aiming pad seating surface on the 
locating plate shall be free of burrs, projections, 
holes or impressions. 

(3) There shall be no projections, tangs, or 
lugs on the locating plate that would prevent the 
seating surfaces locating with the aiming pads 
on the headlamp lens surface. 

(4) Each of the two adjustable legs shall be 
capable of being extended, and locked in posi- 
tion, in increments of .10 in. (2.54 mm) with each 
increment measured from the '0' seating plane 
(perpendicular to the H-V axis of the lamp) with 
a maximum tolerance of ±.01 in. (±0.25 mm). 
The incremental positions extending out from 
the '0' seating plane shall be identified by whole 
numbers, i.e., '0', T, '2', '3', through a 
minimum of '37' for the vertical adjustable leg 
and a minimum of '20' for the horizontal ad- 
justable leg. 

4. New Figures 3 through 9 also are added. 
Issued on May 20, 1983. 



Raymond A. Peck, Jr. 
Administrator 
48 F.R. 24690 
June 2, 1983 



PART 571; S 108-PRE 123-124 



PREAMBLE TO AN AMENDMENT TO 
FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 108 
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment 

[Docket No. 81-11; Notice 4] 



ACTION: Final rule; response to petitions for 
reconsideration. 

SUMMARY: This notice responds to petitions for 
reconsideration of the June 2, 1983 notice (48 FR 
24690) amending Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflec- 
tive Devices, and Associated Equipment, to allow use 
of a semi-sealed replaceable bulb headlamp system. 
Corrections are also made to errors appearing in the 
June notice. 

In response to a petition from Ford Motor Com- 
pany, the requirement that an adjustable aimer 
adapter be supplied with vehicles equipped with the 
semi-sealed headlamp system is modified to specify 
that the aimer adapter be a fixed type. The agency 
acknowledges that some time is required to modify 
the suction cup mount on existing mechanical aimers 
to allow use of the ac^ustable aimer adapter. The re- 
quirement to assure performance on the headlamp 
connectors after the corrosion test is revised to 
eliminate an overly stringent requirement, in 
response to petitions from both Ford and 
Volkswagen. The requirement reverts to no loss of 
function as proposed originally. In addition, critical 
dimensional changes were made to the drawings on 
the replaceable light source. Also, in response to peti- 
tions from Volkswagen and Westfalische Metall In- 
dustries, the corrosion test for semi-sealed 
headlamps is amended to delete the requirement for 
testing vdth the bulb removed, and to adopt the test 
proposed on January 17, 1983 (48 FR 1992). The ef- 
fect of all these changes is to allow manufacturers 
to commence manufacturing the new headlamps for 
their introduction before the end of the year. 

Finally, the agency has deleted all dimensions of the 
standardized replaceable light source that were 
originally specified only for reference purposes. 



EFFECTIVE DATE: September 30, 1983. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On June 2, 
1983, NHTSA published a notice amending 49 CFR 
571.108, Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, 
Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equip- 
ment (48 FR 24690). The amendment adopted an 
optional motor vehicle headlighting system con- 
sisting of two semi-sealed replaceable bulb 
headlamps. Each headlamp consists of two discrete 
components, a lens bonded to a reflector, and a 
replaceable light source of standardized design. To 
insure the proper performance of the new headlamp 
design, certain environmental tests were adopted. 
Petitions for reconsideration of various aspects of the 
amendment were filed by Ford Motor Company 
("Ford"), General Motors Corporation ("GM"), 
Sylvania, Volkswagen of America ("VW"), and 
Westfalische Metall Industries (manufacturer of 
Hella lighting equipment) ("Hella"). Because the 
headlamps may incorporate inchned lenses and most 
existing mechanical aimers are designed for 
headlamps with vertical lenses, the amendment re- 
quired that each vehicle manufactured between July 
1, 1983, and July 1, 1984, which has the new 
headlamps system, be furnished with an adjustable 
adapter to allow use of existing mechanical aiming 
equipment. 

Discussion of Petitions 

Corrosion Test (Paragraphs S4.1.1.36(dX4) and 
S6.5). 

In its notice of proposed rulemaking on January 
17, 1983, (48 FR 1992) NHTSA proposed a corrosion 
test which would involve subjection of a test lamp 
to a salt spray test in accordance with ASTM B117-73 
"Method of Salt Spray (Fog) Testing" for a period 



PART 571; S 108-PRE 125 



of 240 hours, consisting often successive 24-hour in- 
tervals. During each 24-hour interval, the test 
chamber salt spray would be activated for 23 hours 
and deactivated for 1 hour. At the end of the test 
period, there could not be evidence of internal or ex- 
ternal corrosion more than an eighth of an inch from 
sharp edge or any corrosion on the terminals or 
elsewhere, which would involve loss of function. Fur- 
ther, the lamp would be required to meet the 
minimum photometric requirements for headlamps 
at the end of the test. 

As NHTSA stated in its June 2, 1983 notice, "One 
commenter noted that the proposed test would not 
achieve the objective of ensuring reflectors with good 
corrosion resistance because the test does not take 
into account a situation in which a bulb may be 
removed for an extended period of time." NHTSA 
adopted a corrosion test requiring removal of the 
bulb for the 1 hour of the interval in which the salt 
spray is deactivated to assure adequate corrosion 
resistance of reflector surfaces with an accelerated 
test. In recognition of the fact that the introduction 
of a salt atmosphere on the inside of the lamp might 
create a salt deposit on the lens not easily removed, 
the proposal for photometric performance at the end 
of the test was not adopted. The strictures against 
rust or corrosion on the lens and reflector were 
adopted as proposed. In summary, in adopting the 
corrosion test NHTSA believed that lens-reflector 
assemblies needed a corrosion requirement to pre- 
vent premature reflector degradation in cheaper 
parts which might become available. 

NHTSA was petitioned by VW and Hella to recon- 
sider the modified corrosion test. VW's objection, 
and the principal objection by Hella, was the require- 
ment that the bulb be removed during the final hour 
of each of the ten test cycles. Both petitioners ob- 
ject on the grounds that the test was not discussed 
in the proposal. In VW's opinion, only an all-plastic 
lamp could meet the new corrosion requirements and 
it does not beheve that the agency intended to be 
design restrictive. It therefore petitioned that the 
standard be amended to adopt the corrosion test as 
proposed. It was Hella's position that the re- 
quirements do not mirror real-world conditions and 
afford the opportunity of water entry during bulb 
removal or insertion which could bias the test results. 

The agency has considered these comments care- 
fully. Although the test it proposed appeared ade- 



quate at the time to judge the performance of a semi- 
sealed lamp as a whole, the agency adopted a more 
component-oriented test to ensure adequate reflec- 
tor performance with an accelerated test. It is evi- 
dent, however, that at least some commenters 
beheve the subject of corrosion testing should be 
more fully explored. Because the replacement 
market for the new headlamps will be minimal dur- 
ing the first year of the lamps' availability, NHTSA 
is granting the petitions of VW and Hella for recon- 
sideration of the subject, and amending the standard 
to specify the corrosion test without bulb removal 
as proposed. NHTSA is preparing a notice of pro- 
posed rulemaking which will propose a bulb removal 
test for lamps. This NPRM will appear in the near 
future. 

In addition, the agency originally proposed a pro- 
hibition against "loss of function" on lamp terminals. 
This was quantified in the final rule to allow corro- 
sion on terminals "provided there is no voltage drop 
greater than 3 percent from that measured before 
the test when measured per paragraph 6.4 of SAE 
J580 August 1979." 

Ford raised a question as to the appropriateness 
of the electrical test. VW also objected to the adop- 
tion of the 3 percent voltage drop, on the basis that 
it had not been described in the proposal, and that 
it was unreasonable. The reason for the objection is 
that the terminals are similar to those of sealed beam 
lamps and renewed at each burnout. In VW's opi- 
nion, no significant safety problem has occurred, and 
if some limit on corrosion of the terminals is 
necessary, the "loss of function" requirement should 
be sufficient. 

NHTSA agrees that the requirements in the 
Federal Register should be reconsidered and is amen- 
ding the standard to specify the requirement as pro- 
posed. The agency is preparing an NPRM which will 
propose a new test. "This NPRM will appear in the 
near future. 

Accurate Rated Bulb. In its comments on the pro- 
posal, GM stated its assumption that NHTSA would 
use "accurate rated bulbs" in its compliance testing 
of the new headlamps. In its petition for reconsidera- 
tion it asked that the photometry specified in 
paragraph S4.1.1.36(bXl) be conducted according to 
paragraph S4.1.1.20 of Standard No. 108 as well as 
the ah-eady-specified paragraph 6.4 of SAE J575 June 
80. Paragraph S4.1.1.20 states: "Except for a lamp 



PART 571; S 108-PRE 126 



having a sealed-in bulb, a lamp *** shall meet the 
applicable requirements of the standard when tested 
with a bulb whose filament is positioned within ± .010 
inch of the nominal design position specified in SAE 
Standard J573d, "Lamp Bulbs and Sealed Units," 
December 1968, or specified by the bulb manufac- 
turer." GM argues that use of such bulbs provides 
a common basis for evaluating other components, and 
that in this manner compliance testing on lighting 
devices made by other laboratories can be repeated 
and compared. 

The bulbs specified in J573d and defined as "ac- 
curate rated" have the trade numbers 1156, 1157, 
and 1157A, and are intended for applications other 
than headlamps. Sealed beam headlamps are tested 
"as is" without reference to filament tolerance and 
must meet the minimum photometric requirements 
regardless of filament placement. NHTSA believes 
that this concept has met the need for headlamp safe- 
ty and that there is no need to prescribe a filament 
tolerance of +.010 for the standardized replaceable 
light source. The tolerance specified on low beam is 
+ .015 inch with the centerline of the high beam to 
be located within + .035 inch of the centerline of the 
low beam. The semi-sealed headlamp with 
replaceable light source should be tested 
photometrically in a manner identical to its fully seal- 
ed counterparts. GM's petition is denied. 

Replaceable Light Source Dimensions. GM com- 
mented that the specifications of the filament are not 
sufficiently rigorous to define the exact placement 
of the filament within the bulb assembly, which could 
present a problem because the headlamp manufac- 
turer may have to certify a lamp using aftermarket 
bulbs. It requested additional specifications on rota- 
tion, slant and snake of the filament, and it also stated 
that the tolerance of Dimension G in Figure 3-5 (sic) 
was in error. 

The agency is amending the dimensions of Figure 
3-6. But GM's petition to adopt additional dimensions 
is denied; in the agency's view, a minimum standard 
does not require the additional dimensions sug- 
gested. Any vehicle manufacturer, however, may 
specify that its supplier provide bulbs meeting addi- 
tional specifications if it wishes. 

Sylvania and Ford pointed out various errors and 
minor changes needed in Figure 3 which specifies 
dimensions for the standardized replaceable light 
source. (Sylvania stated that a more accurate way 



to describe the cap was needed.) The petitions are 
granted on these points and all the requested 
changes are being made. 

Change in Defifiitton. GM petitioned that the word 
"bonded" be removed from the definition of 
replaceable bulb headlamp so that a lens alone could 
be replaced in the event of breakage. In the develop- 
ment of the final rule, NHTSA considered changing 
the definition in the manner requested but rejected 
it because removable lenses introduce additional op- 
portunities for aiming problems due to alignment in- 
accuracy. Also, there is the opportunity for substitu- 
tion of lenses designed for off-road vehicles and for 
other than U.S. beam patterns. Accordingly, GM's 
petition is denied. 

Vibration Test. NHTSA proposed a vibration test 
with many of the characteristics of that contained in 
SAE J575 June 80. There were very few comments 
on the proposal, but it was pointed out that the test 
differed from that of SAE J575e, already incor- 
porated in Standard No. 108 for headlamps and other 
lighting devices. Accordingly, the final rule adopted 
the vibration test currently required for other items 
of lighting equipment, so as not to burden manufac- 
turers with differing vibration tests requiring dif- 
ferent test equipment. 

Commenting that this is a "substantive and 
substantial change" GM claims that the J575e test 
has been "abandoned by the industry" as "obsolete" 
and "non-repeatable", and asked NHTSA to adopt 
the vibration test proposed, or the one specified in 
SAE J575 June 80. 

NHTSA disagrees with GM's characterization of 
J575e. Although the test in the earlier version may 
use less modem equipment than the later one, 
NHTSA continues to regard J575e as more closely 
approaching on-road vibration characteristics. Fur- 
ther in adopting the vibration test of J575e, NHTSA 
considered it a logical outgrowth of the preceding 
notice and comment period and not such a deviation 
from the course of the rulemaking as to warrant, in 
all fairness to the public, a new notice offering op- 
portunity to comment. To impose the same SAE 
vibration test upon semi-sealed headlamps as is re- 
quired for all other types of headlamps and lighting 
equipment, instead of the proposed test containing 
certain characteristics of a later version of that SAE 
standard, cannot be said either to be unfair or out- 



PART 571; S 108-PRE 127 



side the penumbra of the proposed rulemaking. GM's 
petition is denied. 

Tolerance on Wattage and Spherical Cayidle-pmver. 
GM asked for an amendment of paragraph 
S4.1.1.38(bXl) for a tolerance of ±12 percent of bulb 
lumens. Sylvania asked for a ± 10 percent tolerance 
on lumens, claiming that this is the current industry 
standard. 

Sylvania's petition is granted, and the standard 
amended to allow a tolerance of ± 10 percent. This 
should allow industry to comply with reduced costs 
attributable to lesser bulb rejection. GM also asked 
for a tolerance of ± 7V'2 percent on upper and lower 
beam wattages. The values given are maximum and 
therefore a tolerance is not appropriate. For this 
reason, the GM petition is denied. 

Windshield Washer Fluid. The agency incorrect- 
ly spelled the washer fluid component in paragraph 
S6.4(bX4) as "monethinalamine". It is corrected to 
read "monoethanolamine." 

The percentage of this test fluid used in the 
chemical resistance test was given as 1.5. GM, the 
manufacturer of the fluid, states that this is the cor- 
rect percentage in bulk form, but that when the fluid 
is diluted with two parts water for normal recom- 
mended usage, the correct percentage is 0.5. GM's 
petition is granted, and an appropriate change is be- 
ing made. 

Si. 1.1. 38(b) and S6. 7.2(c) Minor Amendments. 
Sylvania requested a clarification that a headlamp 
assembly in the life test be in the normal operating 
attitude. It further requested that the 12.8 and 14 
volts noted in this section be specifically identified 
as design and rated voltage, respectively. The agen- 
cy agrees and clarifying amendments are made. 

The agency is also clarifying the heat test pro- 
cedure to insure that the headlamp achieves max- 
imum head dissipation by being operated on its 
highest wattage filament. 

Paragraph S7 Bulb Deflection Test. Sylvania com- 
mented that to allow a permanent deflection of .005 
inch after a 4-pound load is more severe than the bulb 
will experience in practice, and suggested that the 
requirement be amended to allow deflection of .010 
inch after a 2-pound load, which "is more reasonable 
and economically practical." 



The agency does not agree with this suggestion. 
The danger of misaim due to bulb deflection requires 
assurance that the bulb will not move in the base dur- 
ing handling and installation. 

Paragraph S8 Aiming Adapters. Ford, the only 
manufacturer currently known to NHTSA who in- 
tends to use the new headlamp system during the 
1984 model year, has called to NHTSA's attention 
that paragraph S8 specifies an adjustable adapter for 
use during the first year rather than a fixed adapter 
as discussed in the preamble. 

NHTSA's specification of the adjustable adapter 
for the first year was in error, and Ford's petition 
for substitution of a fixed adapter is granted. The 
adapter will allow lamps to be aimed mechanically 
by a mechanical aimer conforming to SAE J602. 

It remains the intention of NHTSA that adjustable 
adapters be available for use when mechanical aimers 
are modified to allow their use. Although Standard 
No. 108 is being amended to no longer require ad- 
justable adapters, NHTSA is retaining the re- 
quirements for headlamp markings to assist in aim- 
ing with adjustable adapters conforming to the 
design specified in the June admendment (Figure 9) 
expected to become available by July 1, 1984. GM 
requested a change that would allow 45 degrees of 
adjustment. An extreme angle of a headlamp lens, 
such as 45 degrees, not only reduces light transmit- 
tance but also creates a distortion in the beam pat- 
tern more hkely to create glare. Therefore GM's peti- 
tion is denied. 

Foiir-Lamp Headlamp System. VW asked for an 
admendment of paragraph S4. 1.1.36 which would 
allow use of a four-lamp replaceable bulb headlamp 
system with only two bulbs illuminated on either 
high or low beam. GM, in a letter to the agency after 
the reconsideration period, inquired whether two 
bulbs could be used in a single headlamp cavity. The 
original petition from Ford was based on a two-lamp 
system and the standard as adopted allows only a 
two-lamp system with a single dual-filament bulb in 
each headlamp. A number of issues would need to 
be resolved before allowing use of a dual-filament 
bulb in a four-lamp configuration, or two dual- 
filament bulbs in a single cavity. These issues in- 
volve, in the case of the VW petition, whether only 
two lamps should be illuminated on high beam (four 
are presently required) and if so, whether it is im- 
portant that the front comer of the vehicle be other- 



PART 571; S 108-PRE 128 



wise indicated. These issues also involve 
simultaneous actuation of light filaments in a 
headlamp system which could produce excessive il- 
lumination and uncertainties in the ability to insure 
correct simultaneous high beam or low beam aim if 
the bulb reflector systems are not separate high and 
low beam units. VW's petition and GM's request are 
denied. 

Deletion of Certain Tests for Glass-Lensed 
Headlamps. VW petitioned for deletion of certain en- 
vironmental tests on the basis that they were inap- 
propriate for headlamps with glass lenses. These 
tests are those covering chemical resistance, 
temperature, internal heat, and impact. 

NHTSA has decided to grant in part and deny in 
part this petition. The agency does not agree that 
temperature tests are unnecessary for glass-lensed 
metal reflector lamps. This test checks the expan- 
sion and contraction of the seal of the lens to the 
reflector. As metal is a conductor and glass basical- 
ly an insulator, a large temperature differential will 
occur on these lamps, and a test to verify the ex- 
istence of a good seal is required. On the other hand, 
all glass lenses should easily pass the chemical and 
internal heat test and these requirements may be 
deleted for glass-lensed lamps without affecting the 
overall quality of the lamp. Accordingly, appropriate 
amendments are made to paragraph S4.1.1.36(cXl). 

Paragraph S6.8, Humidity Test. VW petitioned for 
deletion of the requirement in the humidity test that 
the photometric test begin within 10 ± 1 minute after 
the humidity exposure. Apparently VW's 
photometric test equipment is not located near the 
humidity chamber. The purpose of the time restric- 
tion is to insure that all photometric testing after a 
humidity test occur within 2 minutes of each other 
for repeatability of results. NHTSA is therefore de- 
nying VW's petition on this point. 

Deletion of Reference Dimensions. Because 
reference dimensions are advisory and not man- 
datory, the agency is revising Figures 3-2, 3-6, and 
3-8 to delete them, to clarify that manufacturers may 
choose dimensions that they deem appropriate. 
These deletions do not affect interchangeability of 
replacement light sources. 

Correction of Errors. Several errors occurred in 
the rule concemig improper references to Figures 
and cross-references to test procedures. These are 
now corrected. 



PART 571— [AMENDED] 

§571.108 [Amended] 

In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR 571.108, 
Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, 
Reflective Devices, and Associated Eqiiipment, is 
amended as follows: 

1. The definition of "standardized replaceable light 
source" contained in Section S3 Definitions is amend- 
ed by changing "Figure 1" to "Figure 3". 

2. In the second sentence of paragraph 
S4.1.1.36(aX2), the words "the aiming device locating 
plate" are amended to read "an aiming device 
locating plate conforming to Figure 9." 

3. Paragraph S4. 1.1.36(b) is amended by changing 
the word "headlight" to "headlamp". 

4. Paragraph S4. 1.36(c) is revised to read: 

(c) A headlamp with a glass lens need not meet the 
following tests of the sections specified: abrasion 
resistance (S6.2), chemical resistance (S6.4), and im- 
pact (S6.9). If, in addition to a glass lens, the 
headlamp uses a non-plastic reflector, it need not 
meet the internal heat test of section S6.7.2. 

5. Paragraph S4.1.1.36(dX4) is amended by revis- 
ing the final sentence to read: "Corrosion may oc- 
cur on terminals provided there is no loss of 
function." 

6. Paragraph S4.1.1.36(dX8) is amended by chang- 
ing "S6.ll" to "S6.9". 

7. Paragraph S4.1.1.38(bXl) is revised as follows: 
The general specifications of the bulb shall be: 





Low beam 


High beam 


Maximum power, watts at 


50 


70 


12.8 V (design voltage). 






Lumens (without black 


1,067 ±10%... 


1,738 ±10% 


cap) at 12.8 V design 






Voltage. 






Average life at 14.0 V 


320 hrs 


150 hrs. 


rated voltage Oife testing 






is conducted in a fin- 






ished headlamp assem- 






bly placed in the normal 






operating attitude). 


1 





PART 571; S 108-PRE 129 



8. Paragraph S6.1 is amended by adding "S6.5" 
between "S6.4" and "S6.6". 

9. Paragraph S6.2(cX2) is revised to read: 

(2) The abrading pad support shall be equal in size 
to the pad and the center of the support surface shall 
be within ±.08 in. (^2 mm) of parallel to the lens 
surface. 

10. Paragraph S6.4(bX4) is amended by changing 
"1.5% monethinalamine" to "0.5% 
monoethanolamine". 

11. Paragraph S6.5 is amended by deleting the last 
sentence. 

12. The second sentence of paragraph S6. 7.2(c) is 
revised to read: 

(c) . . .The headlamp shall be soaked for one hour 
at a temperature of 95°F [35°C] and then its highest 
wattage filament shall be energized for one hour in 
a still air condition, allowing the temperature to rise 
from 95°F [35°C]. 

13. Paragraph S8 is revised to read: 

S8. Mechanical aiming fixed adapters for 
replaceable bulb headlamps. Each motor vehicle 
manufactured on or after July 1, 1983, and before Ju- 



ly 1, 1984, which is originally equipped with a 
replaceable bulb headlamp system, shall be furnish- 
ed with a pair of fixed headlight aiming adapters for 
mechanical aimers. Each fixed adapter shall be pro- 
vided with a lens to suction cup interface that allows 
the headlamp to be usable with a mechanical aimer. 
Each adapter when mounted on the headlamp in con- 
tact with the aiming pads prescribed by 
S4.1.1.36(aX2), shall provide a surface perpendicular 
to the longitudinal axis of the vehicle so that the lamp 
may be mechanically aimed by a mechanical aimer 
conforming to SAE Standard J602, Oct 80, 
"Headlamps Aiming Device for Mechanically 
Aimable Sealed Beam Headlamp Units." 

14. Figures 3-1 through 3-8, Figure 5, Figure 6, 
and Figure 9-2 are revised, and new Figures 3-10 
and 3-11 are added. 

Issued on September 26, 1983. 



Diane K. Steed, 
Deputy Administrator. 

48 FR 44815 
September 30, 1983 



PART 571; S 108-PRE 130 



PREAMBLE TO AN AMENDMENT TO 
FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 108 

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment 

[Docket No. 81-02; Notice 2] 



ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This notice amends Safety Standard 
No. 108 to require installation of a single center, high- 
mounted stoplamp on passenger cars, in addition to 
the stoplamps presently required. Since the new 
stoplamp is a single-function lighting device pro- 
viding an unambiguous signal, and as it would be 
closer to the forward line of sight of following drivers, 
it will reduce rear-end collisions by providing a more 
effective indication to those drivers that the car 
ahead is slowing or stopping. The amendment is sup- 
ported by field test data indicating that the reduc- 
tion in rear-end coUisions would be significant. A pro- 
posal on this subject was issued on December 31, 
1980, and published on January 8, 1981 (46 FR 2132). 

EFFECTIVE DATE: September 1, 1985. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Safety Stan- 
dard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and 
Associated Equipment (49 CFR 571.108) presently 
requires passenger cars to be equipped with two 
stoplamps, mounted on the rear, one on each side of 
the vertical centerline, as far apart as practicable, 
and at the same height, which is not less than 15 in- 
ches, nor more than 72 inches above the road sur- 
face. Notwithstanding those stoplamps, the problem 
of rear-end collisions remains veiy large. 

The Rear-End Collision Problem 

Of the 4,200,000 rear-end collisions in 1980 (Acci- 
dent Facts, 1981 edition, p. 47), NHTSA estimates 
that approximately 3,500,000 were rear end collisions 
in which a passenger car was struck from behind by 
another motor vehicle. Based on agency studies, it 
is estimated that 2,344,000 of the struck passenger 
cars had their stoplamps on at the time of the colli- 
sion. Data from NHTSA's Fatal Accident Reporting 



System (FARS) for 1980 showed 1,104 fatalities in 
accidents involving rear-impacted passenger cars and 
data from NHTSA's National Accident Sampling 
System (NASS) showed 603,000 injuries in those 
accidents. 

As NHTSA noted in the January 1981 proposal, 
the rule under discussion is the culmination of many 
years of NHTSA and industry-funded research on 
vehicle rear lighting systems. Early research find- 
ings advocated the separation of rear lamps and 
signals to improve recognition and response to the 
different functions. Research conducted in the 
private sector had concluded that reaction time, 
especially at night, was significantly faster when 
lamps were high-mounted. 

Although NHTSA was encouraged by this 
research, the agency decided that more data were 
needed since the research was based on limited real- 
world testing. Thus, in 1977 NHTSA contracted with 
Essex Corporation to make a study and field test 
evaluation of rear lighting systems. The results of 
this study are contained in Report No. DOT-HS-803 
467, "Field Test Evaluation of Rear Lighting 
Systems," 1978. 

The purpose of this study was to determine 
whether equipping cars with one or more of three 
e.xperimental rear lighting and signaling systems 
would result in a significant reduction in rear-end col- 
lisions compared to cars equipped with the current 
conventionally configured Gow-mounted) rear lamps 
under actual traffic conditions. The three experimen- 
tal systems were: 

1. A single center, high-mounted stoplamp. This 
stoplamp was installed at the approximate eye level 
of a following driver. The stoplamp was positioned 
on the vehicle's trunk just beneath the centerline of 
the back window. This stoplamp was supplemental 



PART 571; S 108-PRE 131 



to the normal low-mounted stop and turn signal 
lamps of the vehicle. 

2. A dual high-mounted stop and turn signal lamp 
system. Two high-mounted stoplamps, one on each 
side of the tinink directly below the back window, 
were installed at the approximate eye level of a 
following driver. These stoplamps were supplemen- 
tal to the normal low-mounted stop and turn signal 
lamps of the vehicle. 

3. A functionally-separated system. The tail lamp 
was separated from the stop and turn functions of 
existing low-mounted lamps of the vehicle. 

Approximately 2,100 taxicabs in the Washington, 
D.C. area participated in the study. The taxicabs 
were divided into four equal groups. Three of the 
groups were equipped with one of the three ex- 
perimental concepts while the fourth or control group 
was equipped with conventionally configured rear 
lamps. During the 12-month study period, the four 
groups accumulated a combined total of nearly 60 
million miles under a broad range of weather and 
road conditions. Drivers in the four groups had been 
matched for age, sex, and prior accident record. At 
the end of the study, the four groups had experienced 
a total of 1,470 accidents, of which 217 or 15 percent 
involved taxicabs being struck in the rear while in 
operation. 

The most significant finding of the study was that 
the rate at which taxicabs equipped with a single 
center, high-mounted stoplamp were involved in 54 
percent fewer relevant rear-end collisions than were 
experienced by the control group. A relevant rear- 
end collision is one in which a stoplamp could have 
affected the outcome. Nonrelevant rear-end colli- 
sions, e.g., the striking of the rear of a parked car 
by a moving car, were excluded. This reduction, 
which was demonstrated to be statistically signifi- 
cant, was achieved whether measured in terms of ab- 
solute number or frequency of accidents or in terms 
of accident rate per million vehicle miles. In addition, 
of all the cabs struck in the rear, those with the 
center, high-mounted stoplamp had the lowest mean 
cost of repair. This indicated that these accidents 
were less severe than accidents involving vehicles 
with other stoplamp systems. 

To determine whether the diivers of cabs equipped 
with experimental lamps drove more carefully than 
drivers in the control group, a comparison of the 



groups was made based on non-rear-end accidents. 
The results of this comparison indicate no statistically 
significant differences between any of the three ex- 
perimental groups and the control group. The 
similarity of experience in those crash modes and the 
difference in rear-end crashes supports the finding 
in the Essex study that the supplemental single 
center high-mounted stop signal has the potential to 
dramatically reduce the occurrence of rear-end 
collisions. 

The Essex report recommended that another field 
study be conducted, using a broader sampling of 
drivers, passenger cars, and traffic conditions in 
order to validate its findings. The Allen Corporation 
contracted to make this validation study and the 
results are given in the May 1980 report "Validation 
of the Reduction of Rear-End ColUsions by a High- 
Mounted Auxiliary Stoplamp," (DOT-HS-805 360). 

Accident and exposure (mileage) data were col- 
lected on approximately 5,400 telephone company 
passenger cars, about 2,500 of which were equipped 
with the single, high-mounted stoplamp. The remain- 
ing cars had only conventionally configured stop- 
lamps and served as the control group. The vehicles 
were operated by seven companies of the Bell Tele- 
phone System from New England to Florida, and 
also in Illinois and California. Data were collected 
from January 1, 1979, through December 31, 1979. 
During that time, the vehicles were driven a total 
of approximately 55 million miles. 

The test group received 53 percent fewer rear-end 
impacts than did the control group. The difference 
was statistically significant beyond the 99 percent 
level of confidence. The result is in agreement with 
the Essex study which found a 54 percent reduction 
in rear-end impacts. Therefore, the agency tentative- 
ly concluded that the single high-mounted stoplamp 
would provide significant safety benefits beyond 
those obtained from the safety lighting required by 
Standard No. 108, and issued its January 1981 pro- 
posal for the installation of such a stoplamp. 

As proposed by NHTSA, the high-mounted stop- 
lamp would have been required to have an effective 
projected luminous lens area not less than 41/2 square 
inches in size. A vibration test was specified, under 
which the lamp would have been energized during 
the final ten minutes of the test, and required to be 
functioning at the end. A turn signal, stop, or tail 
lamp would not have been permitted to have its edge 



PART 571; S 108-PRE 132 



closer than 10 inches to the edge of the high-mounted 
lamp. Three slightly different alternative locations 
for the high-mounted lamp were proposed (discussed 
in more detail below). A common feature of each was 
that, if mounted inside the vehicle, the lamp would 
have been required to be provided wath means to pre- 
vent glare. The photometric requirements would 
have been those of SAE Recommended Practice 
J186a "Supplemental High Mounted Stop and Rear 
Turn Signal Lamps," September 1977, which speci- 
fies a maximum of 60 cp for a red supplemental stop 
lamp. 

Since issuance of the proposal, there has been a fur- 
ther field study which verifies the earlier findings. 
That study, "A Field Test of Two Single High- 
Mounted Brake Light Systems," was sponsored by 
the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), 
and completed in April 1981. The objective of the 
study, conducted on a fleet of 900 taxicabs operating 
in New York City, was to establish the effectiveness 
of single, high-mounted brake lamp configurations in 
reducing rear-end collisions between vehicles stop- 
ping or slowing down. 

The most significant finding of the study was that 
taxis equipped with a single center high-mounted 
stop lamp had almost 50 percent fewer rear end col- 
lisions than those experienced by a control group of 
cabs having a conventional rear light configuration. 
Two versions of the high-mounted stoplamp were 
evaluated by the study. One employed a single bulb 
(44 percent reduction) and the other dual bulbs in a 
single housing (58 percent reduction). The two bulbs 
were brighter than the single bulb. 

Discussion of Comments 

Effectiveness on Small Cars 

One of the major issues raised was the effec- 
tiveness of the center high-mounted stoplamps on 
subcompact cars. Critics of both the Essex and the 
Allen studies observe that subcompacts were not in- 
cluded in the Essex study and were included in rela- 
tively small numbers in the Allen study. Further, even 
though 329 or 11.2 percent of the 2,927 control cars used 
in the Allen study were subcompacts, none of these 
subcompacts were involved in a "relevant" rear-end 
collision during the test period. This fact has led to 
the conjecture by some commenters that subcom- 
pacts may actually be involved in relevant rear-end 
collisions to a significantly lesser extent than large 



cars and that as large cars are slowly being replaced 
in the fleet by small cars, there will be fewer vehicles 
involved in relevant rear-end collisions in the com- 
ing years. Thus, the effectiveness of center, high- 
mounted rear stoplamps on subcompact models was 
questioned. 

In response to this criticism, the agency obtained 
data on all police-reported accidents involving 
passenger cars struck in relevant rear-end collisions 
in North Carolina for each year from 1975 through 
1980. These data were obtained by size of car (e.g., 
large, intermediate, compact, subcompact, and 
foreign). > The results of this study were: 

a. For each year, except 1976, and for the average 
of all years combined there were no statistically 
significant differences in relevant rear-end accident 
rates between intermediate, compact, and subcom- 
pact domestic cars. However, during 1976, 
significantly more subcompacts were struck in the 
rear as compared to compacts and intermediates. 

b. For each year, there was a significantly lower 
relevant rear-end accident rate for large passenger 
cars compared to smaller ones. 

c. In general (average of all years combined), the 
relevant rear-end accident rate for foreign cars was 
significantly higher than those of domestic compacts 
and subcompacts. However, in 1976 and 1977 the ac- 
cident rate of the foreign and domestic compacts and 
subcompacts was essentially equivalent. 

d. For each size passenger car and for the average 
of all passenger cars combined, thei-e was no signifi- 
cant change in the rate of occurrence of relevant rear- 
end accidents from 1975 through 1978. Significantly 
lower rates were noted in 1979 and 1980, except for 
foreign cars. 

These results are based on North Carolina ac- 
cidents only, and for the years indicated. However, 
the North Carolina accident experience is believed 
to be comparable to that of the Nation taken as a 
whole for any year. The proportion of municipal and 



' Foreign cars could not be broken down by size of car. Conse- 
quently, the size grroups listed are for domestic passenger cars. 
NHTSA has subsequently learned that in the years 1975-80 
about 90 percent of the foreign cars registered in North Carolina 
were subcompacts and about 9 percent were compacts. 

The rear-end accident rate for foreign cars was significantly 
higher than that for compact and subcompact domestic cars. 



PART 571; S 108-PRE 133 



rural roadway mileage of North Carolina and the 
United States is virtually identical; the motor vehi- 
cle death rate for 100 million vehicle miles is only .14 
percent higher in North Carolna, while the number 
of registered drivers per 1000 persons is only 25 per- 
sons higher than the national average. Therefore, 
these results are strong evidence to indicate that, in 
general, the fact that a passenger car is smaller than 
average does not suggest that the car is more likely 
or less likely to be a struck vehicle in a relevant rear- 
end collision. 

Further information pertinent to the issue of sub- 
compact cars' effectiveness is provided by past 
research on braking perception reaction time spon- 
sored by General Motors at the University of 
Michigan Transportation Research Institute (former- 
ly the Highway Safety Research Institute). One of 
the vehicles used to test for reaction time was a sub- 
compact. A statistically significant reduction in reac- 
tion time occurred in urban areas when the center 
high-mounted stoplamp was added to that 
subcompact. 

Another theory set forth is that the center high- 
mounted stoplamp on a subcompact car may not be 
perceived by following drivers as being higher than 
the conventionally configured stoplamps. Thus, sub- 
compacts may not experience the same reductions 
in collisions as larger cars will. To determine the 
precise effectiveness of the center high-mounted 
stoplamp on subcompacts would require additional 
testing. However, the agency examined typical 
mounting heights (Hg) for the center lamp and com- 
pared these to the current brake light mounting 
heights (Hj) for subcompacts and larger vehicles. The 
difference in height (Hj-Hi) was on average 2.35 in- 
ches less for subcompacts than larger vehicles (10.35 
to 12.7 inches) and 3.3 inches less for the diagonal 
(24.0 to 27.3 inches). Thus, the differences between 
the center high-mounted stoplamp for subcompacts 
is 82 percent and 88 percent of the difference for 
larger cars. Based on this analysis and the previous 
discussions, the agency concludes that the center 
high-mounted stoplamp will be as effective for sub- 
compacts as for the larger tested vehicles. Even if 
subcompacts only achieved 80 percent of the benefit 
of larger cars, they would be highly cost-effective. 

Number of High-Mounted Stoplamps 

Many of the automobile manufacturers commented 
on the issues of whether the final rule should require 



only one rather than two high-mounted stoplamps, 
as well as where the lamp or lamps should be located. 
Manufacturers argued that the agency should not be 
so design restrictive as to specify installation of on- 
ly a single high-mounted stoplamp. The automobile 
industry generally favored the use of two high- 
mounted stoplamps located closer to the sides of a 
vehicle, in order to provide more styling flexibility. 
The agency does not agree with this comment 
because the data show that the single-lamp design 
is more effective. 

The Essex field test results show that the dual 
high-mounted lamps are not so effective as the single 
high-mounted lamp. One of the experimental groups 
in the field test consisted of vehicles with two high- 
mounted combined stop and turn signal lamps. This 
gi'oup did not experience a statistically significant 
reduction in rear-end accidents compared to the con- 
trol groups. 

Locatio7i 

The 1981 NPRM asked for comments on three 
alternative locations as follows: 

Alternative 1 

Each high-mounted stoplamp would have been re- 
quired to be mounted not less than 34 inches above 
the road surface: 

(a) If practicable, outside the passenger car with 
the center of the lamp within 3 inches of the outside 
bottom edge of the rear vvdndow daylight opening, or 

(b) If compliance with paragraph (a) of this section 
were not practicable, inside the passenger car with 
the center of the lamp not more than 3 inches above 
the inside bottom edge of the rear vdndow daylight 
opening and with means provided to minimize reflec- 
tions inside the vehicle from the light upon the rear 
window glazing, or 

(c) If compliance with neither paragraph (a) nor (b) 
of this section were practicable, outside the passen- 
ger car with the center of the lamp within 3 inches 
of the outside top edge of the rear window daylight 
opening. 

Alternative 2 

Each high-mounted stoplamp would have been re- 
quu-ed to be mounted inside or outside the passenger 
car with the center of the lamp not less than 34 inches 
and not more than 50 inches above the road surface, 
and not more than 3 inches below the bottom or 



PART 571; S 108-PRE 134 



above the top of the rear window daylight opening. 
If the lamp were mounted inside the vehicle, means 
would have been required to be provided to minimize 
reflections inside the vehicle from the light upon the 
rear window glazing. 

Alternative 3 

Each high-mounted stoplamp would have been re- 
quired to be mounted: 

(a) If practicable, outside the passenger car with 
its center not less than 38 inches above the ground 
surface and within 3 inches of the bottom of the rear 
window daylight opening, or 

(b) If compliance with paragraph (a) of this section 
were not practicable, inside the passenger car with 
its center as near as practicable to 38 inches above 
the road surface, and with means provided to mini- 
mize reflections inside the vehicle from the light upon 
the rear window glazing. 

In general, commenters recommended Alternative 
2, the least design-restrictive alternative. However, 
all the commenting automobile manufacturers, both 
domestic and foreign, recommended changes to the 
alternatives. Some wanted a minimum mounting 
height of 30 inches while others wanted the minimum 
to be 34 inches. Some agreed that the minimum 
separation distances between the high-mounted 
stoplamp and other rear lighting devices should be 
the proposed 10 inches, others wanted 15 inches. A 
few manufacturers asked deletion of the proposed re- 
quirement that the lamp be within 3 inches of the 
back window daylight opening. Some manufacturers 
wanted the decision whether to install the lamp in- 
side or outside the car left to theii- discretion, and 
some wanted the option to place the lamp off-center 
to avoid interfering with the operation and location 
of rear windshield wiper systems. At least seven dif- 
ferent locations were suggested by commenters to 
accommodate problems presented by different vehi- 
cle configurations. For sedans, the suggested loca- 
tions were the trunk lid or the panel between the 
trunk lid and the rear window; for hatchbacks, the 
roof or the hatch; for station wagons, the roof or the 
tailgate. The seventh location suggested was forward 
of the rear window (i.e., inside the vehicle). 

Based on these comments, the agency decided that 
none of the three alternatives would adequately ac- 
commodate the design problems involved in attemp- 
ting to install center high-mounted stoplamps on all 



sizes and body types of cars. Accordingly, NHTSA 
has decided to eliminate many of the design con- 
straints imposed by the three proposed location alter- 
natives. The final rule requires only that the lamp 
be located on the vertical centerline of the vehicle, 
with no portion of the lens higher than the top of the 
back window nor lower than 3 inches below the bot- 
tom. NHTSA did not agree that hatchbacks and sta- 
tion wagons necessitated mounting the lamp on the 
roof, as it may be mounted at any point on the vehi- 
cle centerline within the parameters indicated. The 
lamp can either be inside or outside the back win- 
dow. However, if it is inside, means shall be provid- 
ed so that no reflections from the light of the lamp 
upon the rear glazing shall be visible to the driver 
when view'ed indirectly in the reaniew mirror or 
viewed directly. NHTSA has concluded that notwith- 
standing the increased latitude provided by this rule 
in lamp placement, the new lamp will still afford the 
visual cues that proved so effective in the field 
studies. 

Lead Time 

NHTSA has also decided to estabhsh an effective 
date of September 1, 1985, i.e., the 1986 model year. 
This will provide a 2-year lead time. The agency 
believes that this lead time represents an appropriate 
balance between minimizing the period in which 
center high-mounted stoplamps will have to be add- 
ed to existing models instead of designed into new 
models and beginning implementation of a very cost- 
effective requirement that will reduce accidents and 
injuries. 

Photometries 

Volkswagen, SAAB, JAMA, Stimsonite, and TSEI 
recommended that the high-mounted stoplamp have 
higher photometric requirements than were pro- 
posed. The NPRM proposed a minimum of 15 cp and 
a maximum of 60 cp at the H-V point. Volkswagen 
recommended that there be a minimum of 40 cp and 
that the maximum be increased from 60 cp to 75 cp. 
The JAMA recommended that the stoplamp inten- 
sity be increased. 

The research performed by Essex and Allen used 
stoplamps that were intended to meet the 
photometric requirements of SAE J186a, a minimum 
of 15 cp and a maximum of 60 cp at the H-V test 
point. The measurement on a typical sample lamp us- 
ed in these studies was 32 cp at H-V, but with a max- 
imum of 47 cp. Although the results of these studies 



PART 571; S 108-PRE 135 



showed reduced rear-end collisions, the comments to 
the docket argue for a higher limit. The agency is 
especially impressed by the results of the IIHS study 
where a 58 percent reduction in collisions was achiev- 
ed using two bulbs. The candela of the two-bulb 
design was 126 candela at H-V with a maximum of 
150. NHTSA has concluded that these results are 
convincing enough to justify adopting a minimum of 
40 cp and a maximum of 160 cp at the H-V point, and 
the final rule so specifies. It is reasonable to believe 
that this increse will provide better detection dur- 
ing periods of dusk and dawn, improved visibility 
when the lamp lens becomes dirty, and better visibili- 
ty of an inside-mounted lamp through the back vdn- 
dow (because the window reduces the light 
transmittance). 

Lamp Size and Shape 

The NPRM specified 4.5 square inches as the 
minimum size of the lamp. This size of lamp was used 
in the research performed by Essex and Allen. In 
view of the favorable results obtained in those 
studies and in the absence of comments providing 
convincing arguments for a different size, 4.5 square 
inches is retained in the final rule. The amendment 
leaves the shape to the judgment of individual 
manufacturers. 

Acclimatization Factor 

A number of comments argued that once all cars 
are equipped with the high-mounted stoplamp, it will 
no longer be effective because all drivers will be "ac- 
climatized" to its effect. According to this argument, 
the additional lamp will show advantages only when 
lamps exist on small percentages of vehicles in the 
total vehicle population. 

The agency does not consider this argument to 
have merit. The addition of a single, high-mounted 
stoplamp on the centerline of the vehicle has several 
direct benefits which the agency believes will be of 
lasting effect. One effect is that its presence on a 
vehicle (vehicle 1) gives the operator of the im- 
mediately following vehicle (vehicle 2) an additional 
"cue" on the centerline of his vision. A second is that 
the driver (driver of vehicle 3) behind vehicle 2 will 
be able to see through that vehicle (if that vehicle 
is a car) and obtain advance warning about the 
response of vehicle 2 to vehicle 1. A third benefit is 
that the supplemental stoplamp will have only one 
possible meaning as opposed to a stoplamp in the 
same housing as a tail lamp: to indicate that a vehi- 



cle is slowing to stop or has stopped. In addition, the 
candela values adopted are substantially higher than 
those of lamps in the test fleets, increasing the like- 
liehood that their signal will be perceived by follow- 
ing drivers. 

The agency will evaluate the experience of cars 
equipped with the high-mounted stoplamp over a 
period of time and determine if there is any ac- 
climatization. The acclimatization factor cannot be 
definitively determined in the absence of a substan- 
tial test fleet. The agency believes that it is at least 
as likely that the effectiveness of the lamp will in- 
crease as decrease in proportion to the percentage 
of vehicles equipped with it. 

Vibration Tests 

It was proposed that a high-mounted stoplamp be 
required to continue to provide illumination upon 
completion of the vibration test specified in SAE 
J575e. Some commenters disagreed with this re- 
quirement. The Japanese Automobile Manufacturers 
Association (JAMA) stated that the vibration 
resistance of a bulb is usually determined by mak- 
ing an impact test as defined in SAE J603. In the 
case of ordinary lamps, the breaking of a filament 
in the vibration test defined in SAE J575 is excluded. 

JAMA argued therefore that since the conditions for 
mounting the stoplamp are the same as those of ex- 
isting lamps such as license plate lamps, the same 
vibration tests should suffice. The California 
Highway Patrol noted that the test appeared to be 
oriented towards the integrity of the bulb rather than 
the lamp since it does not permit a failed bulb to be 
replaced. 

The vibration section of SAE J575e was designed 
as a test for vehicle lamp fixtures to assure that they 
would not be destroyed or become ineffective in ser- 
vice, and that the fixture mounting was stable. It was 
not intended to assess the durability of bulbs. Almost 
all bulb failures result from using up (by boiling away) 
tungsten of the filament during normal operation or 
by a fracturing of the filament. Before a filament has 
been burned, it is quite ductile and can withstand 
substantial physical abuse without breaking. But 
after it has been submitted to the 4500-4800 °F 
temperature at which it normally operates, signifi- 
cant changes begin to occur. As the filament is 
burned, the tungsten takes a different crystalline 
structure and in time becomes fairly brittle. Thus, 
as the bulb is burned in normal usage, the filament 



PART 571; S 108-PRE 136 



becomes mechanically weaker from the boiling away 
of tungsten and less tolerant of physical shock and 
vibration because it has become more brittle as well. 

For these reasons, the agency has decided that the 
lamp, but not the bulb, will be subject to the vibra- 
tion tests, consistent with treatment of other vehi- 
cle lamps covered by Standard No. 108. 

TaUgating Education 

A concerned citizen asked whether an educational 
program to inform the public of the hazards of "tail- 
gating" would be more effective in reducing rear-end 
collisions than the installation of the high-mounted 
stoplamps. 

For many years there have been driver education 
programs in public and private schools. All these 
courses have emphasized the hazards of driving too 
close to the preceding vehicle. Despite the education 
programs, no significant reduction in rear-end colli- 
sions appears to have resulted. In constrast, the ef- 
fectiveness of the installation of center, high-mounted 
stoplamps in significantly reducing rear-end collisions 
has been demonstrated in three separate field 
studies. 

Rural Accidents 

A number of commenters correctly pointed out that 
the field studies (Essex, Allen, and IIHS) involve 
mainly urban driving. Thus, there are no data on the 
effectiveness of the high-mounted stoplamp in 
predominantly rural driving, even though some test 
fleet vehicles were occasionally operated in rural 
areas. Accordingly, the agency is assuming for strict- 
ly analytical purposes that the stoplamp will not have 
any effectiveness in rural driving. This assumption 
does not mean that NHTSA anticipates that there 
will not be any benefits in rural driving. The agency 
believes that there will be some currently unquan- 
tifiable benefits and is not aware of any evidence 
negating the possibility of such benefits. 

Summary of Decision 

NHTSA is therefore requiring that passenger cars 
manufactured on or after September 1, 1985, be 
equipped with a center high-mounted stoplamp. The 
lamp must be red, with a minimum effective pro- 
jected luminous lens area of 4.5 square inches and 
must be designed to meet the requirements of SAE 
Recommended Practice J186a "Supplemental High 
Mounted Stop and Rear Turn Signal Lamps," 
September 1977, except that the laboratory re- 



quirements are in accordance with SAE J575e, and 
the photometric requirements are those specified by 
NHTSA. The current stoplamp requu-ements and 
functions are retained. The center high-mounted 
stoplamp would be actuated by the stoplamp switch. 
The lens center of the lamp must be mounted on the 
vertical centerline of the car as seen from the rear. 
Because of the variety of passenger car tj-pes and 
the need of the manufacturers to incorporate the 
lamp into their designs in an economical and orderly 
manner, it is hereby found that an effective date 
slightly less than 2 years after the issuance of this 
rule is necessary to provide adequate lead time and 
therefore is in the public interest. 

Alternatives 

With additional research, more nearly optimum 
specifications for stoplamp configurations may be 
developed. These factors may include more effective 
intensity, size, beamspread, and location. Other types 
of lamps or added functions such as deceleration 
signals may be desirable and should be investigated. 
However, to delay this rulemaking to await new im- 
provements will result in delay of implementing re- 
quirements known to appreciably reduce accidents. 

The agency also considered exempting subcom- 
pacts from the requirement. While the agency does 
not have a conclusive test of subcompacts with the 
center lamp, it knows of no reason why a center high- 
mounted stoplamp would not be equally effective for 
subcompacts. 

Other alternatives now being investigated include 
radar or automatic braking and radar warning 
devices. Radar or automatic braking or warning 
systems have been developed and may be available 
as optional systems. Other systems are being 
developed and may also be available as optional 
systems. However, time vdll be needed to test and 
evaluate these systems. At least several years are 
likely to pass before there is a possibility that any 
of these systems can be proved sufficiently effective, 
reliable, and free of problems for the agency to con- 
sider initiating any rulemaking to permit and regu- 
late their use. Further, the cost for automatic brak- 
ing or radar warning would probably be many times 
the cost of the high-mounted stoplamp. 

Potential Benefits, Costs, and Other Impacts 

NHTSA has considered the impacts of this rule and 
determined that the rule is major within the mean- 



PART 571; S 108-PRE 137 



ing of Executive Order 12291 and significant within 
the meaning of Department of Transportation 
guidelines. A regulatory impact analysis discussing 
those impacts has been prepared and placed in the 
docket. A copy of the analysis may be obtained free 
of charge from the Docket Section whose address is 
given near the beginning of this notice. 

Benefits 

The Essex study found that for taxicabs in the 
Washington, D.C. area, the center high-mounted 
single-function stoplamps reduced relevant rear-end 
collisions by 54 percent. Similarly, the Allen study 
found that for telephone company passenger cars 
operating with these stoplamps in many areas of the 
counti-y, relevant rear-end collisions were reduced 
by 53 percent. The IIHS study indicated a 44 to 58 
percent reduction. Had all passenger cars been 
equipped with the center high-mounted stoplamp, 
NHTSA estimates that there would have been 
900,000 fewer accidents and 40,000 fewer injuries in 
1980. Available research data do not permit the 
agency to estimate the effectiveness of the center 
high-mounted stoplamp in reducing fatalities. 
However, the agency believes that it is reasonable 
to expect that the new stoplamp could reduce 
fatalities through making possible timely evasive ac- 
tion or reduction in impact speed. 

In view of the potential that this rule offers in 
reducing traffic accidents and injuries occurring in 
such accidents, NHTSA has determined that promul- 
gation of the rule is within the authority delegated 
by law and consistent with congressional intent, as 
ex-pressed in the mandate of the National Traffic and 
Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 USC 1381 et 
seq), an act whose purpose is "to reduce traffic ac- 
cidents and deaths and injuries resulting from traf- 
fic accidents." This rule satisfies the statutory 
criteria of meeting the need for safety, being prac- 
ticable, and being stated in objective terms. NHTSA 
has further determined that the factual conclusions 
upon which this rule is based have substantial sup- 
port in the agency record, viewed as a whole, with 
full attention to public comments in general and the 
comments of people directly affected by the rule in 
particular. 

A center high-mounted system would also reduce 
property damage. Data on the cost to repair damage 
from rear-end collisions on a national scale were not 
available. However, both the Essex and Allen studies 



reported on repair costs of relevant rear-end acci- 
dents for their test fleets. The mean average repair 
costs per vehicle in the two studies were, consecu- 
tively, $402 for the control group and $271 for the 
single high-mounted stoplamp group (1982 dollars). 

Based on the data summarized above, more fully 
set forth in the final regulatory impact analysis, 
NHTSA estimates that approximately $434 million 
(1982 dollars) would have been saved in 1980 in 
repairs by the avoidance of approximately 900,000 
rear-end collisions and, on average, a lessening of 
severity in another 900,000 relevant rear-end 
collisions. 

Costs 

Manufacturers estimated that a high-mounted 
stoplamp will add an average of $8 to $15 to the price 
of each car. NHTSA's estimated consumer costs 
range from about $4 (for integration of the lamp in- 
to new vehicle designs) to about $7 (for adding the 
lamp to existing vehicle designs). The figures in this 
range include the cost of installation. Resolution of 
the differences between these estimates is not possi- 
ble since the manufacturers did not provide any 
detailed explanation or support for their estimates. 
The bases for the agency's two independent 
estimates are set forth in the regulatory impact 
analysis. The initial annual consumer cost of the high- 
mounted stoplamp is expected to be approximately 
$70 million, based on an annual production of 10 
million passenger cars. By model year 1988, when 
virtually all coupes, sedans, and station wagons could 
be redesigned to incorporate the lamp, the total an- 
nual consumer cost should fall to $40 million or an 
average cost of $4 per stoplamp per car. 

Combining the benefits from reductions in proper- 
ty damage and costs of the high-mounted stoplamp 
yields a net benefit of $394 million per year. (Even 
if the highest of the unexplained cost figures from 
the manufacturers were used, there would still be 
net benefits of $284 million.) These net benefit figures 
are based on the agency's estimate that the stoplamp 
would be 50 percent effective in reducing relevant 
rear-end collisions involving passenger cars in urban 
areas. If the stoplamp were only 5 percent effective 
in reducing rear-end accidents, economic costs would 
just equal economic benefits (exclusive of reductions 
in injuries or fatalities) in the long run. 

The agency anticipates that maintenance and 
operating costs of the new lamp will be minimal. 



PART 571; S 108-PRE 138 



Potential Environmental Impacts 

This action will not have a sigTiificant effect on the 
environment. NHTSA estimates that the increased 
fuel consumption caused by adding approximately 
one-half pound of weight to each car would be only 
0.05 gallon per year. This would be a minor increase 
in use of fuel. The burning of this additional amount 
of gasoline would also be a negligible factor in air 



pollution. There are no other known negative 
environmental impacts. 

In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR 571.108, 
Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 is amended 
as follows: 

1. Table III is amended to add the following new 
item of lighting equipment after "stoplamps": 



TABLE III-REQUIRED MOTOR VEHICLE LIGHTING EQUIPMENT 

All passenger cars and motorcycles, and multipurpose passenger 

vehicles, trucks, trailers, and buses, of less 

than 80 inches overall width 



Item 


Passenger cars, 


Trailers 


Motor- 


Applicable SAE 




multipurpose 




cycles 


standards or 




passenger vehicles, 






recommended 




trucks and buses 






practices 


* 


* * 


* 


* 


* * 


High- 


1 red, effective 


Not 


Not 


J186a, September 


mounted 


September 1, 1985, 


required 


required 


1977, except 


stoplamp 


for passenger 
cars only 






that Table 1 in 
that standard is 
replaced by 
Figure 10 


* 


* * 


* 


* 


* * 



PART 571; S 108-PRE 139 



2. Table IV is amended to add the following new 
item of lighting equipment after "stoplamps": 



TABLE IV- LOCATION OF REQUIRED EQUIPMENT 

All passenger cars and motorcycles, and multipurpose passenger 

vehicles, trucks, trailers, and buses, of less 

than 80 inches overall width 





Location on 




Height above 










road surface 


Item 


Passenger cars. 




Motor- 


measured from 




multipurpose pas- 




cycles 


center of item 




enger vehicles. 






on vehicle at 




trucks, trail- 






curb weight 




ers, and buses 








Column 1 


Column 2 




Column 3 


Column 4 


* * 


* 


* 


* 


* * 


High-mounted 


On the rear, on the 




Not 


[See S4.3.1.8] 


stoplamp 


centerline [See 
S4.3.L8], effective 
September 1, 1985, 
for passenger cars 
only 




required 




* * 


* 


* 


* 


* * 



3. New paragraph S4. 1.1.41 is added to read: 
S4.1.1.41 Each high-mounted stoplamp shall: 

(a) Have an effective projected luminous area 
not less than 4V2 square inches. 

(b) Have a signal visible to the rear through a 
horizontal angle from 45 degrees to the left to 45 
degrees to the right of the longitudinal axis of 
the vehicle. 

(c) Have the minimum photometric values in 
the amount and location listed in Figure 10. At 
the axis reference H-V (where H=0° and V=0°), 
the intensity shall be not less than 40 and not 
more than 160 candela. 

(d) Provide access for convenient replacement of 
the bulb without the use of special tools. 

4. New paragraph S4.3.1.8 is added to read: 

S4.3.1.8 Each high-mounted stoplamp shall be 
mounted with its center on the vertical centerline of 



the passenger car as the car is viewed from the 
rear. No portion of the lens shall be higher than the 
top of the back window or lower than 3 inches below 
the bottom of the back window. If the lamp is 
mounted inside the vehicle, means shall be provided 
so that no reflections from the light of the lamp 
upon the rear window glazing shall be visible to the 
driver when viewed indh-ectly in the rearview mir- 
ror or viewed directly. 

5. Paragraph S4.4.1 is amended by deleting the 
period at the end thereof and adding ", and no high- 
mounted stoplamp shall be combined with any 
other lamp or reflective device." 

6. Paragraph S4.5.4 is amended by adding the 
following sentence: 

S4.5.4 *** The high-mounted stoplamp on each 
passenger car shall be activated only upon applica- 
tion of the service brakes. 



PART 571; S 108-PRE 140 



7. The final clause of the first sentence of 
paragraph S5.1 is revised to read: 

S5.1 ***, for stoplamps, tail lamps, and turn 
signal lamps designed to conform to SAE Stand- 
ards J586c, J585d/J585e, and J588e, respectively, 
and for high-mounted stoplamps designed to con- 
form to SAE Recommended Practice J186a, except 
that Table 1 is replaced by Figure 10. 

8. A new Figure 10 is added as follows: 

FIGURE 10-MINIMUM DESIGN 
PHOTOMETRIC REQUIREMENTS FOR 
CENTER HIGH-MOUNTED STOPLAMPS 









lOL 


26 








5L 


40 


H 






V 

5R 

lOR 


40 
40 
26 




Maximum 




160* 



*The lamp shall not exceed the listed maximum 
over an area larger than that generated by a 1/4 
degree radius within a solid cone angle from lOL to 
lOR and from lOU to 5D. 

Issued on October 13, 1983. 



Test Points 



Red (cd) 



100 


lOL 


13 




V 


26 




lOR 


13 




lOL 


26 


5U 


5L 


40 


and 


V 


40 


5D 


5R 


40 




lOR 


26 



Diane K. Steed 
Deputy Administrator 

48 FR 48235 
October 18, 1983 



PART 571; S 108-PRE 141-142 



PREAMBLE TO AN AMENDMENT TO 
FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 108 



Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment 
(Docl(et No. 81-02; Notice 3) 



ACTION: Final rule; response to petitions for 
reconsideration. 

SUMMARY: This notice responds to petitions for 
reconsideration of the October 18, 1983 notice (48 
FR 48235) amending Standard No. 108, Lamps, 
Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, to 
require installation of a single center high- 
mounted stoplamp on passenger cars manufac- 
tured on or after September 1, 1985, in addition to 
the stoplamps presently required. 

In response to petitions from a number of 
manufacturers, the requirement that the lamp be 
mounted not higher than the top of the rear 
window and not lower than 3 inches below it is 
amended to allow mounting above the rear window 
and, for convertibles only, not more than 6 inches 
below it. The notice also makes clear that the lamp 
can be mounted directly to the glazing. Because of 
the physical impossibility of eliminating all reflec- 
tions from interior-mounted lamps shining on the 
rear window glazing, the agency has amended the 
requirement that there be no reflections, and 
returned to the performance level originally 
proposed, that means be taken to minimize re- 
flections. Although the maximum permissible in- 
tensity of 160 candela has been retained, the 
minimum intensity has been lowered from 40 
candela to 25 candela. The minimum lamp area of 
4V2 square inches has been retained. Lamps that 
are mounted in the vehicle interior need not meet 
moisture, dust, or corrosion requirements. 

The notice also provides interpretations of ques- 
tions that were raised by the petitioners and 
others. The most important of these clarifies the 
agency's intent that photometries of an interior- 



mounted lamp be measured through the glazing as 
the lamp is installed in the vehicle with the rear 
window behind it. 

EFFECTIVE DATES: September 1, 1985, except 
September 1, 1986, for termination of the provi- 
sion permitting center high-mounted stoplamps to 
flash with hazard warning systems. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On October 
18, 1983, NHTSA published a notice amending 49 
CFR 571.108, Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 
108, Lamps. Reflective Devices, and Associated 
Equipment (48 FR 48235). The amendment re- 
quires installation of a single center high-mounted 
stoplamp on passenger cars manufactured on or 
after September 1, 1985, in addition to the 
stoplamps presently required. As adopted, the 
amendment requires that the lamp must have a 
light-emitting area of not less than 4'/2 square 
inches, produce not less than 40 candela at any 
point and be mounted on the vehicle's rear vertical 
centerline no higher than the top of the rear win- 
dow and no lower than 3 inches below the lower 
edge of the glazing. If the lamp is mounted in the 
vehicle's interior, means must be taken to insure 
that there are no reflections from the rear glazing. 
Petitions for reconsideration of the amendment 
were filed by General Motors, Ford Motor Co., 
Chrysler Corp., American Motors Corp., Motor 
Vehicle Manufacturers Association, Volkswagen 
of America, and Renault USA Inc. Some of these 
petitioners also raised questions of interpretation. 
Other requests for interpretation were received 
from Koito Manufacturing, Ltd., Toyo Kogyo 
(Mazda), Honda and Nissan Research and Develop- 
ment, Inc. Because these questions are of general 



PART 571; S 108-PRE 143 



interest and applicability, the agency has decided 
to respond to them in this notice as well. The 
agency notes that many favorable comments were 
received from the public at large. 

Discussion of Petitions 

Mounting location. Paragraph S4.3.1.8 re- 
quires in pertinent part that the high-mounted 
stoplamp be located with its center on the vertical 
centerline of the vehicle and that "no portion of the 
lens shall be higher than the top of the back win- 
dow or lower than three inches below the bottom of 
the back window". Virtually all petitioners argued 
that this location was unduly restrictive. Many in- 
terpreted the standard as not allowing mounting of 
the lamp on the glazing itself. Some asked whether 
a "window" includes that portion of the glazing 
which may be opaque. 

The agency proposed three alternative locations 
in its NPRM of January 8, 1981 (46 FR 2132) based 
upon mounting height of the lamp above the road 
surface, but eventually rejected this approach. The 
final rule adopted a location relative to the 
vehicle's back vnndow rather than relative to vehi- 
cle height based on its opinion that the adopted 
approach would afford manufacturers more flex- 
ibility in vehicle design. Yet the rule appears to 
present problems for certain types of vehicle 
designs such as hatchbacks and station wagons. 
Several meetings were held between the agency 
and individual manufacturers who explained the 
difficulties involved, primarily on vehicles with 
steeply sloped rooflines and rear window glazing. 
Chrysler Corporation presented the additional 
problem of its convertibles where the bottom of the 
rear glazing is approximately 5 inches above the 
feasible location for the lamp. There was a general 
consensus among the petitioners that the agency 
should allow mounting above the back window, so 
as to minimize interference with the field of view in 
the rearview mirror and that by so doing, the in- 
tegrity of rearward vision could be maintained. 

Given the clear need of manufacturers faced with 
tooling deadlines for a more convenient location, 
and the agency's desire to remove unnecessary 
design restrictions, the agency is granting their 
petitions. Paragraph S4.3.1.8 is being amended to 
allow mounting on the vertical centerline above the 
back window. However, to reduce possible prob- 
lems associated with contrast of lamps mounted 
above the roof line and to avoid confusion with 



emergency vehicles, the agency expects manufac- 
turers to mount the lamps as close to the back 
window as possible. Allowing a minimally higher 
location of the lamp will preserve the visual cue 
provided by the system and remove a possible 
obstruction to rearward vision. In recognition of 
the rear glazing limitations of convertibles, this 
paragraph is being further amended to provide 
that no portion of the lamp lens on convertibles 
may be more than 6 inches below the window. 

In attempting to arrive at a practicable location, 
some manufacturers asked NHTSA whether the 
top and bottom of the daylight opening could be 
considered the top and bottom of the window. 
Passenger cars, principally ones with sharply slop- 
ing rooflines, are beginning to appear with por- 
tions of the rear glazing opaque. Opaqueness is 
intended to reduce the amount of sun entering the 
passenger compartment. The agency takes this op- 
portunity to clarify that the perimeter of the max- 
imum unobstructed opening through the glazing 
surface is considered to be the perimeter of the 
back window. For purposes of this requirement, 
NHTSA considers opaqueness to constitute an 
obstruction. 

GM petitioned the agency to specify that the 
center of the high-mounted stoplamp lens instead 
of its perimeter be the frame of reference for 
determining compliance with the locational re- 
quirements. The agency believes that the relaxa- 
tion of the locational requirements makes adoption 
of this change unnecessary. The additional step of 
adopting the measurement change would have the 
effect of relaxing the locational requirement even 
further, an undesirable result in the agency's view. 

It was unclear to many commenters that 
S4.3.1.8 was not intended to preclude mounting on 
the glazing itself. To clarify that point that mount- 
ing to the glazing is permissible, a letter was sent 
to the petitioners shortly after the close of the com- 
ment period and placed in the docket. The agency 
is amending S4.3.1.8 to reflect that letter. 

Nissan asked whether the standard allows 
mounting of the lamp on deck lids or tail gates. The 
answer is yes; the agency considers each of these 
items a "rigid part of the vehicle . . . that is not 
designed to be removed except for repair" within 
the meaning of the specification of S4.3.1. 

Nissan also asked whether it was permissible to 
mount the lamp so as to obscure part of the field of 



PART 571; S 108-PRE 144 



view stipulated in paragraph S5.1.1 of Standard 
No. Ill, Rearview Mirrors. This paragraph allows 
the line of sight to be partially obscured only by 
passengers or head restraints. The agency did not 
propose to broaden the list of objects which may 
obscure the line of sight. Therefore, the lamp must 
be located so as not to interfere with the line of 
sight. Alternatively, in accordance with S5.3 of 
Standard No. Ill, the vehicle can be equipped with 
an outside rear view mirror on the passenger side. 

Inside reflections. As adopted, paragraph 
S4.3.1.8 stated that "if the lamp is mounted inside 
the vehicle, means shall be provided so that no 
reflections from the light of the lamp upon the rear 
window glazing shall be visible to the driver when 
viewed indirectly in the rear view mirror or viewed 
directly." NHTSA had proposed that the reflec- 
tions be minimized, and the preamble to the final 
rule did not discuss why the agency had adopted a 
more stringent requirement. 

Virtually all commenters objected to the elimina- 
tion of reflections as physically impossible. 
NHTSA had assumed that mounting the lamp flush 
with the rear glazing, or with a protective shroud 
extending from the lamp to the glazing, would be a 
simple, feasible way to eliminate reflections. 
Manufacturers demonstrated, however, that the 
optical qualities of glass are such that not all light 
passes through the glazing, and that a small por- 
tion of it is reflected before it can exit, creating a 
"halo" effect around the perimeter of even a flush- 
mounted lamp, or its shroud. Accordingly, the peti- 
tioners requested that NHTSA return to the 
language originally proposed, a minimization of 
reflections. 

NHTSA has carefully considered this issue and 
the manufacturers' views. Agency personnel have 
examined vehicles with prototype systems demon- 
strating that reflections are virtually nonexistent. 
The manufacturers in turn are more fully aware of 
NHTSA's concerns after these meetings. The 
design solution most likely to be adopted is a pro- 
tective shroud that either contacts or extends very 
close to the glazing. The combined effect of the 
shroud location, lamp design and filament location 
eliminates direct reflection from the surface of the 
glazing. This is the same solution envisioned by 
NHTSA when it adopted the requirement that 
there be "no reflections". Given the literal im- 
possibility of eliminating reflections entirely, 



NHTSA believes that the same safety goal is 
achieved by granting the manufacturers' petitions 
and amending S4.3.1.8 to require that manufac- 
turers "minimize" reflections. 

Photometric intensity and test methods. Table 
HI of Standard No. 108 specifies that the intensity 
of the high-mounted stoplamp at the axis reference 
H-V and eight other central points shall not be less 
than 40, nor more than 160 candela at any test 
point. The NPRM had proposed a minimum of 15 
and a maximum of 60 candela. 

The majority of the petitioners objected to the in- 
creased photometries and asked that the values 
originally proposed be adopted. Two petitioners, 
General Motors and Ford, conducted demonstra- 
tions for the agency with lamps of varying inten- 
sity to support their petitions. 

The values adopted in the rule were based upon 
recommendations by five commenters to the 
NPRM that the new lamp have higher intensities 
than NHTSA proposed. They were also based upon 
the results of a study by the Insurance Institute for 
Highway Safety where a 58% reduction in colli- 
sions was achieved using two bulbs, with a max- 
imum of 150 candela. The agency therefore con- 
cluded that higher values would ensure better 
detection during periods of dusk or dawn, or when 
the lens became dirty. 

The demonstrations conducted by GM and Ford 
using lenses of approximately 4.5 square inch area, 
indicated to the NHTSA staff that 15 candela 
might prove too low to be effective during daytime 
conditions and under certain nighttime conditions 
on city streets because of the existence of light 
from many sources both on and off the roadway. 
These demonstrations, however, showed that a 
minimum of less than 40 candela appeared ade- 
quate for safety. Accordingly, NHTSA grants the 
petitions for a reduction in the minimum photo- 
metrics, to 25 candela and denies those seeking a 
decrease in the maximum. Figure 10 is amended 
appropriately. 

General Motors believes that there is a need to 
specify intensity requirements for center high- 
mounted stoplamps with two or three compart- 
ments, to ensure that the brightness of the signal is 
not diminished if lamps are produced with lens 
areas substantially in excess of the minimum re- 
quired. Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association 
echoed this concern. It was also suggested that 



PART 571; S 108-PRE 145 



zones be established to group test points, as have 
been established for certain other lighting devices. 

Under the existing rule, manufacturers are not 
precluded from offering multi-compartment or 
multi-bulb lamps. Because comments were not 
sought on intensities for multi-compartment or 
multi-bulb lamps, or for grouping of test points in 
zones, these subjects are considered not within the 
scope of the proposal and the rule, and the peti- 
tions regarding them are denied. 

At present, most manufacturers have indicated 
that they will attempt to make the initial lamp as 
small as possible. The single compartment lamps 
likely to appear should therefore have adequate 
visibility. However, the converse could present a 
problem as well, where maximum intensity is emit- 
ted through minimum lens area. Should this occur, 
and create the potential for glare, the agency may 
move to institute rulemaking to ameliorate it. In 
the meantime, NHTSA encourages manufacturers 
to adopt intensity values commensurate with the 
amount of lens area provided. For example, 100 
candela as measured outside the vehicle appears 
appropriate as the maximum value for a single- 
compartment lamp with the minimum required 
area of 4V2 square inches and values above 100 
candela could be used in designs embodying large 
lens areas and for multiple bulbs and compart- 
ments. 

The agency received several requests for an in- 
terpretation whether photometries of interior 
mounted lamps were to be measured through the 
glazing. NHTSA wishes to provide the clarification 
that photometries are to be measured as if the light 
were mounted on the vehicle, and if the location is 
inside the passenger compartment, the agency's 
determination of compliance will be made by 
measuring photometries with the glazing in place. 

Paragraph S4. 1.1. 41(b) requires that the signal 
be "visible to the rear through a horizontal angle 
from 45 degrees to the left to 45 degrees to the 
right. . . .", Koito asked what the agency con- 
sidered "visible". This appears especially impor- 
tant for the design of the shroud on interior 
mounted lamps. In the agency's opinion, the lamp 
must meet the test points specified in Figure 10 up 
to the maximum specified 10 degrees right and 
left. Beyond those points, until 45 degrees right 
and left, no requirements are established other 
than that the signal be "visible", which means any 



portion of the signal, without regard to lens area or 
candela. 

Mazda asked whether the lamp could be tested 
with a rear window wiping system in the off mode. 
The agency will test a vehicle with all its standard 
and optional equipment, including rear wiping/ 
washing systems, in the design off position. The 
agency emphasizes that the existence of such 
equipment does not affect the necessity of comply- 
ing with the photometric requirements. Notwith- 
standing such equipment, the lamp must be posi- 
tioned in such a way that it will comply when 
tested at any of the photometric test points 
specified in the standard. 

Minimum area. GM asked that the minimum 
required area of the lamp be reduced to 3 square 
inches, believing that is sufficient to achieve the 
safety purpose for which it has been mandated. GM 
demonstrated a lamp of this nature to the agency, 
but to observers it appeared insufficient to provide 
a readily identifiable stopping cue under many 
road and environmental conditions. Lamps no 
smaller than the minimum 4V2 square inches 
adopted were used in the research supporting this 
rule, and the agency has concluded that the 
minimum area should not be changed. Accord- 
ingly, GM's petition is denied. 

Effective date. Ford and Chrysler petitioned 
that the effective date be delayed for a year; 
American Motors asked for six months. GM asked 
that the effective date be accelerated with com- 
pliance optional before September 1, 1985. 

NHTSA considers it in the public interest that 
the new safety device should be introduced at the 
earliest feasible moment. To assist compliance by 
September 1, 1985, it has granted petitions affect- 
ing mounting location and intensity. This positive 
action on NHTSA's part should reduce the lead 
time required to tool the lamp and vehicles, and en- 
sure that the September 1, 1985 effective date is 
met. The petitions for a delay in effective date are 
therefore denied. 

GM wishes to introduce high mounted stop lamps 
on some models before the September 1, 1985 ef- 
fective date. Accordingly, GM requested that 
NHTSA specify that the lamp may be introduced 
before the effective date, so that any State laws 
that might prohibit the lamp's early introduction 
would be preempted. The only known example at 
the time was California's prohibition against in- 



PART 571; S 108-PRE 146 



terior mounting on any stop lamp. A bill has been 
signed by the Governor of California which 
removes this impediment, but which adopts 
language similar to that contained in NHTSA's 
original final rule prohibiting any reflections from 
the lamp. Because NHTSA relaxed this prohibition 
elsewhere in this notice, preemption would still be 
necessary. For this reason, and in the event there 
may be unknown issues of preemption, NHTSA in 
a companion notice is proposing to amend the 
standard to allow use of the lamp on 1985 models. 
(49 FR ). 

Because of the way their vehicles are currently 
wired, both Ford and GM asked the agency to 
allow the high-mounted lamp to flash when the 
hazard warning lamps flash. To encourage an early 
introduction of the system and to minimize costs, 
the agency has decided to permit the stop lamp to 
flash with the hazard warning lights until 
September 1, 1986. The longer lead time allowed 
should enable manufacturers to rewire their prod- 
ucts at minimal costs. 

Test pattern. The applicable SAE requirements 
incorporated by reference for center high-mounted 
stoplamps are those of Recommended Practice 
J186a, September 1977. Five of the photometric 
test points involve measurements at test point 5D 
(5 degrees down, or below horizontal). GM states 
that there may be some current vehicle configura- 
tions and mounting locations where these test 
points would not be visible. This could exist when a 
lamp is mounted at the bottom of the glazing, and a 
spoiler or luggage rack is mounted on the deck lid. 
It therefore requested an amendment to the stand- 
ard that these test points need not be met if the 
lamp "is visible at a point 10 feet from its lens and 
35.5 inches above ground but is not visible at the 5 
degree down test point". Ford asked for similar 
relief. Lately, a supplier of deck mounted luggage 
racks has told NHTSA that its business has been 
directly affected because of a presumed inability of 
some future vehicles to meet this requirement with 
the rack in place. However, the added flexibility in 
lamp location provided in this amendment should 
ameliorate this potential problem. 

The agency has decided to deny petitions asking 
relief from this requirement. Such an amendment, 
as NHTSA interprets it, would eliminate all photo- 
metric requirements below the horizontal for all 
vehicles whose high-mounted lamps were mounted 



less than 46 inches from the ground. Visibility of 
the lamp from this angle could be important for 
viewing vehicles from the rear when coming over a 
hill. The agency has reduced its restrictions 
regarding mounting location, and if a lamp 
mounted in the lowest permissible position would 
not meet the 5 degree test points, the lamp could 
be located to a higher height where the require- 
ment may be met. 

Further, the photometric requirements do not 
specify that the entire lens must be visible from 
each 5 degree down test point. Instead, they 
specify the intensity of light that must be visible 
from those points. Therefore, the requirement can 
be met with a lamp whose lens is partially obscured 
by a portion of the vehicle when viewed from some 
of the test points. 

Environmental tests. Chrysler and others asked 
whether there is a need to apply moisture, dust, 
and corrosion requirements to lamps which are 
located inside the vehicle. The agency agrees with 
the argument that these lamps will not be subject 
to extremes of moisture, dust, and corrosion by vir- 
tue of their interior location and therefore need not 
meet these requirements. NHTSA is granting 
these petitions by amending the standard ac- 
cordingly. 

Minor amendments. The notice also amends the 
standard in minor respects. An outdated reference 
to a no longer effective "Figure 3" is deleted. Ex- 
ceptions from compliance with J 186a have been 
removed from Table III and paragraph S5.1 and 
placed more appropriately in S4. 1.1.38. A 
typographical error in Figure 10 shows test posi- 
tion "50L". The correct number is "5L" and the 
amended Figure 10 reflects the change. 

Miscellaneous comments and interpretations. 
Several commenters pointed out that the center 
high-mounted stop lamp is currently not permitted 
in certain European countries and that its adoption 
is a step away from the goal of international har- 
monization. The practical effect of this is that U.S. 
vehicles manufactured after September 1, 1985, 
and intended for sale in Europe would have to be 
modified before sale, with the converse also being 
true of European cars manufactured for sale here. 

While one of the agency's goals is to further in- 
ternational harmonization, NHTSA will not 
sacrifice safety benefits to achieve it. The agency 
will work within Working Party 29 of the United 



PART 571; S 108-PRE 147 



Nation's Economic Commission of Europe to Issued on May 11, 1984. 

achieve harmonization on this issue. 

The question was asked whether the "center" of 
the lamp is its geometric center, its optical center Diane K Steed 

(reference center at photometric measurement) or Administrator 

the center of the bulb filament. The center of the 

lamp, in the agency's meaning, is the geometric 49 F.R. 20818 

center. May 17, 1984 



PART 571; S 108-PRE 148 



PREAMBLE TO AN AMENDMENT TO 
FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 108 

Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment 
(Docket No. 81 02; Notice 6] 



ACTION: Final rule; Response to petition for 
reconsideration. 

SUMMARY: On May 17, 1984 (49 FR 20879) 
NHTSA proposed to amend FMVSS 108 to allow 
use of center high mounted stop lamps beginning 
September 1, 1984, requiring conformance only 
with location and reflection minimization require- 
ments. That action was taken pursuant to a re- 
quest by General Motors Corporation that 
NHTSA specify that the lamp may be installed 
before the effective date of September 1, 1985. 
Adoption of an optional compliance date would 
preempt any State laws that might prohibit the 
lamp's early introduction. This Notice amends 
Standard No. 108 to allow installation of the lamp 
effective August 1, 1984. The agency anticipates 
that this action will promote early achievement of 
the safety benefits associated with the addition of 
center high-mounted stop lamps. This notice also 
responds to a petition for reconsideration of the 
amendments to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 
Standard No. 108 published on May 17. 1984 (49 FR 
20818). 

EFFECTIVE DATE: For voluntarily installing 
center high-mounted stop lamps and for location 
and reflection minimization requirements for 
those devices: August 1, 1984. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In its peti 
tion for reconsideration of NHTSA's final rule 
establishing requirements for a center high- 
mounted stop lamp on passenger cars manufac- 
tured on or after September 1, 1985, (see 48 FR 
48235, October 18, 1983) General Motors requested 
that NHTSA amend Standard No. 108 to specify 



that the lamp may be introduced before the effec- 
tive date. The purpose of this request was to ob- 
tain earlier preemption of any State laws that 
might prohibit the lamp's early introduction. On 
May 17, 1984, NHTSA responded to GM's request 
(49 FR 20879) and proposed to allow (but not re- 
quire) early introduction of the stop lamp. Only re- 
quirements regarding lamp location and minimiza- 
tion of reflections would be applicable to cars 
manufactured with center high-mounted stop 
lamps between September 1, 1984, and September 
1. 1985. 

Comments on the proposal were received from 
Chrysler Corporation, Ford Motor Company, 
Volkswagen of America, General Motors, and 
Parker Hannifin Corporation. All commenters con- 
curred with the proposal. Ford and General Motor 
recommended that the final rule be effective upon 
its publication in the Federal Register. GM further 
commented that the proposal "did not address the 
after market package which General Motors had 
intended to make available through our dealers, 
since it only speaks of passenger cars manufac- 
tured between September 1, 1984 and September 
1, 1985." 

The agency agrees that an effective date as 
early as practicable is in the public interest, and, in 
accordance with the proposal and the comments of 
GM and Ford, has designated August 1, 1984, as 
that date. Because the vehicle certification at- 
tached pursuant to 49 CFR Part 567 requires only 
the month and year of manufacture, generally the 
agency sets an effective date for new vehicle re- 
quirements as of the first day of a month so that a 
manufacturer will not have to certify to differing 
requirements within a single month. An effective 
date as of the first of the month also assists the 



PART 571; S108-PRE 149 



agency in its compliance efforts. NHTSA does not 
understand that any 1985 model vehicles equipped 
with the lamp will be manufactured before 
August 1, 1984, and consequently found no reason 
to adopt an effective date earlier than that date. 

The agency was not aware that GM had in- 
tended to offer an aftermarket package until 
receiving its comment. Such an amendment would 
be outside the scope of the proposal, and accord- 
ingly, was not considered. Under paragraph S4.7.1, 
the standard covers the aftermarket only to the 
extent that GM (or any manufacturer) offers a 
lamp intended as replacement for an original 
equipment center high-mounted stop lamp. How- 
ever, to encourage retrofit in the aftermarket, 
NHTSA will study GM's request and consider 
whatever legal action may be required to remove 
impediments to the lamp's use. 

Parker Hannifin Corporation, manufacturer of 
Ideal turn signal and hazard warning signal 
flashers, petitioned for reconsideration of the 
amendment to FMVSS No. 108 published on May 
17, 1984 (49 FR 20818), which was based upon the 
original petitions for reconsideration of the final 
rule requiring center mounted stop lamps. Specifi- 
cally, Parker Hannifin objected to new paragraph 
S4.6(b) which stated that "high-mounted stop 
lamps on passenger cars manufactured on or after 
September 1, 1985, but before September 1, 1986, 
may flash when the hazard warning system is ac- 
tivated". In the commenter's opinion, the agency 
had given no prior notice "to this function", and 
stated that the agency's action will "create a 
chaotic condition in the automotive flasher in- 
dustry." The company avers that an insufficient 
period of time exists "for the development of a 
'due care' basis for certification of hazard warning 
flashers rated for seven (7) lamps for conformance 
to FMVSS 108". The existing basis for certification 
of conformance of thermal flashers is said to be "up 
to six (6) lamps". Parker Hannifin recommended 
that the agency prohibit the additional lamp from 
flashing, or rule that certification for flashers can 
exclude the center high-mounted stop lamp. In its 
opinion, the agency's action is the very type of 
substantive rulemaking without notice which the 
Third Circuit found objectionable in Wagner Elec- 
tric Corp. V. Volpe (466 F.2d 1013 (3rd. Cir. 1972). 

Parker Hannifin's belief that the provision 
allowing flashing was adopted without notice 
overlooks the circumstances under which the 
center high mounted stop lamp was made subject 



to a prohibition against flashing. Although the 
preamble to the proposed rule did not raise the 
issue and the commenters did not address it, the 
specific text of the amendment, taken in context 
with the other requirements of the standard, re- 
quired the center high mounted stop lamp to be 
steady-burning. However, the agency recognizes 
that it was a reasonable reading of the proposal for 
the commenters to believe that the light could be 
flashing. Thus, in order to avoid imposing a burden 
on vehicle manufacturers due to their interpreta- 
tion, the May 1984 amendment allowed the lights 
to flash on vehicles manufactured before Septem- 
ber 1, 1986. 

The factual situation differs greatly from that of 
Wagner. Before the amendment complained of by 
Wagner, flashers were required to be "designed to 
conform" to Standard No. 108, but the burden of 
certification was upon vehicle manufacturers as 
aftermarket equipment was not covered until 
January 1, 1972. NHTSA amended the standard 
without sufficient notice to apply it to all flashers, 
for whatever purpose manufactured, thus placing 
the certification responsibility entirely upon 
flasher manufacturers. Further, the flashers were 
required to "conform", not merely be "designed to 
conform". In the instant case, the effect upon 
flasher manufacturers i§ a remote one. In order to 
facilitate early adoption of a safety device with 
demonstrable public benefits, at a minimum cost, 
the agency has allowed vehicle manufacturers to 
continue to use existing wiring systems for a 
limited time, if they so choose. There is no require- 
ment that the new lamp flash when the hazard 
warning signals do, there has been no change to 
existing Federal or SAE materials applicable to 
flashers, and given the perceived limited use of the 
new lamp during 1985 model production, there 
would appear to be minimal impact upon original 
equipment and aftermarket requirements for 
flashers of existing designs. Nor can NHTSA pro- 
vide an interpretation that certification for 
flashers may exclude the center mounted lamp. 
That permission is already implicitly contained in 
Standard No. 108 which allows the manufacturer 
to specify the design load at which its flasher is in- 
tended to operate. Accordingly the agency has 
decided to deny parker Hannifin's petition. 

NHTSA has considered the potential impacts of 
this rule and has determined that the rule is 
neither major within the meaning of Executive 
Order 12291 nor significant within the meaning of 



PART 571; S108-PRE 150 



the Department of Transportation guidelines. The 
conclusions in the original regulatory evaluation 
for the final rule are not affected by the adoption 
of this rule. A free copy of that evaluation is 
available from the Docket Section. 

The agency has also considered the impacts of 
these amendments under the Regulatory Flexibil- 
ity Act. I certify that these amendments will not 
have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities. Accordingly, no regula- 
tory flexibility analysis has been prepared. Manu- 
facturers of motor vehicles, those businesses af- 
fected by this amendment, are generally not small 
businesses within the meaning of the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act. Small organizations and govern- 
mental units which purchase cars equipped with 
center high-mounted stop lamps will not be 
significantly affected. The increase in new car 
prices for vehicles manufactured by companies 
which opt for early compliance will be negligible. 

Because motor vehicle manufacturers must 
make timely decisions with respect to plans for the 
1985 model year and because this amendment will 
facilitate the early introduction of a safety device, 
the agency finds that an effective date, earlier 
than 180 days after issuance of the final rule, is in 



the public interest. The change adopted in this 
notice relieves restrictions. Additional notice and 
comment on the August 1, 1984 early compliance 
date is unnecessary because of the minor nature of 
the change from the proposal. 

In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR 
571.108, Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, is 
amended as follows: 

1. A new paragraph S4. 1.1.42 is added to read: 
S.1.1.42 A passenger car manufactured between 

August 1, 1984, and September 1, 1985, may be 
equipped with a high-mounted stop lamp that con- 
forms to S4.3.1.8. 

2. Subparagraph (b) of paragraph S4.6 is amend- 
ed by changing the date "September 1, 1985" to 
"August 1, 1984". 

Issued on August 24, 1984. 



Diane K. Steed 
Administrator 

49 FR 34488 
August 31, 1984 



PART 571; S108-PRE 151-152 



PREAMBLE TO AN AMENDMENT TO 
FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 108 

Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment 
[Doci^et No. 81-11; Notice 8] 



ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The purpose of this notice is to amend 
the corrosion test requirements and procedures in 
Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 applicable 
to semi-sealed replaceable bulb headlamps and 
lens/reflector components of such headlamps. 

The bulb removal corrosion test adopted in this 
notice was proposed on September 30, 1983 (48 FR 
44866). In essence, it requires that the bulb be 
removed from the lamp and the test chamber at 
the end of the required 23-hour period of exposure 
to salt spray, for the final hour of eight of the ten 
24-hour test cycles. This notice also adds motor- 
cycles to the categories of vehicles allowed to be 
equipped with semi-sealed replaceable bulb head- 
lamps. A revised bulb connector test is also 
adopted herein. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 13, 1984. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On January 
17, 1983, NHTSA proposed the adoption of a new 
type of headlamp system, a semi-sealed unit com- 
prising a bonded lens/reflector and a standardized 
replaceable light source (48 FR 1992). To insure 
that the new lamps offered durability of photo- 
metrics equivalent to sealed beam systems, 
NHTSA proposed that the new lamps conform to 
certain requirements after being subjected to a 
battery of environmental tests. 

One of the most important of these tests was in- 
tended to demonstrate resistance of the lamp to 
corrosion, as the agency was aware of the vulner- 
ability of non-sealed composite headlamps to mois- 
ture. One of the reasons the agency never allowed 
European headlights was their lack of corrosion 



resistance. The ECE standard does not assure that 
a high level of reflector corrosion resistance is pro- 
vided. German vehicle inspection data showed 
significant rejections due to dull, corroded and 
damaged headlamp reflectors. Thus, a good corro- 
sion test for reflectors was needed — particularly 
since replacement lamps which include reflectors 
will be sold as aftermarket items. Because of this 
concern about corrosion resistance of the reflector, 
NHTSA originally requested that Ford propose a 
test for corrosion resistance immediately after 
receipt of its petition. Ford responded by pro- 
posing a 48-hour test, based on the requirements of 
SAE J575 June 1980 which is intended for other 
automotive lighting equipment. Ford later sug- 
gested a 240-hour test that was contained in a 
draft of a proposed SAE standard, X J 1383. The 
ASTM procedure (B-1 17-73) referred to in the pro- 
posed SAE standard is a standard method of salt 
spray (fog) testing, applicable to testing of ferrous 
and non-ferrous metals. It is also used to test in- 
organic and organic coatings, etc., especially 
where such tests are the basis for material or 
product specifications. Ford, which originally pro- 
posed the test in XJ1383, stated that the 240-hour 
period was developed with the SAE Lighting Com- 
mittee to establish a minimum level of perfor- 
mance of a lamp exposed to typical corrosive en- 
vironments encountered in the United States. The 
test is nearly five times longer than is now used 
for lighting devices. The 240-hour period is in- 
tended to simulate a level of exposure at least 
equivalent to that experienced during the service 
life of the vehicle. According to Ford, this 240-hour 
test is expected to detect the problems of corro- 
sion of headlamp elements that have been a source 
of complaint with older European style headlamps. 



PART 571 S108-PRE 153 



Therefore, in January 1983 NHTSA proposed that 
the headlamp be subjected to ten 24-hour cycles of 
a salt spray test in which the salt spray would be 
activated for the first 23 hours and deactivated the 
24th. At the conclusion of the test, the headlamp 
was to have met the photometric requirements of 
Standard No. 108 with no evidence of external or 
internal corrosion or rust. Loss of adhesion of any 
applied coating was not permitted more than .125 
inch (3.2 mm) from any sharp edges on the inside or 
outside. Corrosion could occur on terminals pro- 
vided there was no loss of function. 

On the basis of comments, NHTSA adopted a 
corrosion test modified in both major and minor 
respects (June 2, 1983, 48 FR 24690). Corrosion was 
not to be visible "without magnification." Corro- 
sion could occur on terminals "provided there is no 
voltage drop greater tha.i 3 percent from that 
measured before the test when measured per 
paragraph 6.4 of SAE J580 August 1979." The ma- 
jor change, however, was to specify that during 
the hour of salt spray deactivation in each cycle 
the bulb was to be removed. NHTSA viewed this 
as a necessary change to assure adequate reflector 
corrosion resistance, even though it was an ac- 
celerated test. The corresponding introduction of a 
salt atmosphere on the inside of the lamp could 
create excessive salt deposits not easily removed, 
so NHTSA did not require that the lamp demon- 
strate photometric conformance. 

The agency received petitions for reconsidera- 
tion on various requirements of the corrosion test 
from Ford, Volkswagen of America, and West- 
fallische Metall Industrie, manufacturer of Hella 
lamps. Ford objected to the introduction of the 
voltage drop limitation on the bulb and connector, 
stating that it had not been proposed in the NPRM 
or suggested by any commenter. Ford further ob- 
jected that the requirement was impracticable and 
unreasonable and that it appeared that the agency 
intended to specify 3% of the lamp's design voltage. 
The two other petitioners objected to the speci- 
fication that the bulb be removed during the final 
hour of the cycle, on the basis that the requirement 
had not been proposed and that the test was not 
representative of real world conditions. The 
agency agreed that the connector voltage drop test 
should specify current drop in a fixed test setup 
and such a test would be adopted and it would 
delete reference to paragraph S6.4 of SAE J580, 
August 1979, to avoid confusion. To remove any 
question about adequacy of notice, the agency on 



September 30, 1983, amended paragraphs 
S4. 1.1.36(d)(4) and S6.5 to adopt the corrosion test 
as originally proposed in January 1983, along with 
the photometric test (48 FR 44818). At the same 
time it published a notice of proposed rulemaking 
(48 FR 44866) covering the corrosion test as 
adopted on June 2, 1983. 

Under the September 1983 NPRM, the test 
would be applicable to all replaceable bulb head- 
lamps and replacement lens-reflector assemblies, 
and was a modified version of the one objected to 
by petitioners for reconsideration. With a connec- 
tor attached to the terminals, the lamp would 
undergo the ten consecutive 24-hour cycle salt 
spray test, with the bulb removed for the final 
hour of each cycle when the spray was deacti- 
vated. The lamp would then be rinsed with deion- 
ized water and allowed to dry. The strictures 
against corrosion would remain, and could occur on 
terminals provided that the current did not 
decreased more than 3% compared to pretest condi- 
tions when using a test set up not identical but 
similar to Figure 1 in SAE J580, August 1979 and 
as further detailed in the proposed rule. The 
power source would be set to provide 12.8 volts 
and the resistance would be set to produce 10 
amperes of current for pretest conditions. 

The agency proposed the accelerated test which 
includes bulb removal as a reasonable way of 
judging resistance of the reflector to degradation 
caused by oxygen and moisture which are always 
present in the atmosphere. It is not an impractic- 
able test; one European headlamp manufacturer, 
Robert Bosch, had informed NHTSA that certain 
of its headlamps with metal reflectors already met 
the standard as adopted in June 1983. In addition, 
the agency tested the replaceable bulb headlamp 
used by Ford which has a plastic reflector; it met 
the requirements with 10 bulb removals in a 240- 
hour period. The agency did receive conflicting 
data on the ability of various headlamps to pass 
the bulb removal corrosion test, but with its own 
tests and the data furnished by Bosch, the agency 
concluded that the proposed requirement would be 
practicable and reasonable for both metal and 
plastic reflector headlamps. 

Finally, in line with SAE J584 and paragraph 
S4.1.1.34 which, in essence, allow a motorcycle to 
be equipped with passenger car headlighting equip- 
ment, NHTSA proposed that a motorcycle may be 
equipped with one or two replaceable bulb head- 
lamps meeting all the requirements of the standard. 



PART 571; S108-PRE 154 



Comments were received, principally, from 
Ford Motor Company, Robert Bosch Corporation, 
Volkswagen of America, and General Motors Cor- 
poration. In addition, comments from Sylvania on a 
rulemaking petition submitted by Volkswagen to 
allow use of H-4 bulbs, stated that environmental 
tests for reflector integrity are important to lamp 
performance and should not be compromised. 

Robert Bosch confirmed that it had run exten- 
sive tests on its lamps, and that it could meet the 
proposed corrosion test. In Ford's view, reflector 
corrosion resistance could be adequately judged 
by removing the bulb at the end of the first two 
24-hour cycles only. It pointed out that a modifica- 
tion of this nature would eliminate the cost con- 
cerned with weekend overtime which would be re- 
quired if the bulb had to be removed during each 
day of the 10-day test. Hella recommended that the 
bulb be allowed to remain installed for two cycles. 
GM recommended that the entire assembly be 
tested for 240 hours of continuous salt spray. VW 
recommended that the corrosion test not be 
amended, but it also presented modifications to 
simplify weekend scheduling problems. It sug- 
gested three alternatives to the proposal: a 5-day 
test, a reduction in bulb removal from 10 cycles to 
8, and a variation in the 10-day cycle under which 
the bulb could remain out for more than one hour, 
and in for more than 23 hours. The agency re- 
viewed these comments carefully and has decided 
to adopted VW and Hella's suggestion that the bulb 
be allowed to remain in the lamp for 2 of the 10 
cycles, in order to accommodate weekend sched- 
uling programs and to programs and to eliminate 
overtime. Although this requirement is slightly 
less severe than proposed, based on the agency's 
successful testing of a current production Mark 
VII headlamp at 10 cycles NHTSA has concluded 
that the results at 8 cycles should not differ great- 
ly. To increase objectivity and repeatability, 
however, the amendment limits the periods of non- 
removal to the manufacturer's choice of any two 
periods at the end of the fourth through seventh 
cycles; bulb removal is specified for the first three 
and final three cycles. The agency is interested in 
being flexible in this regard without reducing the 
objective of the standard. 

GM recommended that the entire assembly be 
tested for 240 hours of continuous salt spray and 
that afterwards there would be no evidence of 
corrosion that would result in failure of any other 
test specified for replaceable bulb headlamps, such 



as photometries. 

GM appears to have misinterpreted this section 
since the test applies to the headlamp but not to 
mounting and aiming hardware. In any event, the 
bulb removal has no effect on this aspect of perfor- 
mance. GM provided no substantiation for its opi- 
nion that a variability of the composition of the salt 
spray will have a measurable effect on lamp 
performance. NHTSA has dealt with this concern 
by restricting the location of the lamp within the 
cabinet, and by specifying the amount of time that 
the cabinet can be open. In accordance with GM's 
comments, language is adopted that the headlamp 
is mounted in the middle of the test chamber to 
provide a more uniform exposure of the test 
sample, even though sizes of test chambers may 
differ. Further, language is added clarifying that 
the bulb is removed from the test chamber during 
the hour of salt spray deactivation. Finally, 2 
minutes is now specified as the maximum that the 
chamber may be opened during bulb removal or 
replacement. 

The proposal from Ford for a change in the 
language of the electrical connector test has been 
adopted. 

No comments were received on the proposal 
that motorcycles be added to the categories of 
vehicles allowed to use Standard No. 108's 
replaceable bulb headlighting system, and the 
standard is amended as proposed. 

NHTSA has considered this rule and has deter- 
mined that it is not major within the meaning of 
Executive Order 12291, "Federal Regulation," or 
significant under Department of Transportation 
regulatory policies and procedures, as its adoption 
does not require any person to change current 
practices under the standard. A regulatory evalua- 
tion was prepared for the amendment adopted on 
June 2, 1983, and placed in the docket. (A free copy 
of this document can be obtained from the Docket 
Section.) It is considered fully relevant for pur- 
poses of this rule. 

NHTSA has concluded that this rule will not 
have a significant impact on the human environ- 
ment. The lamps that will be manufactured pur- 
suant to the rule are expected to be lighter, thus 
slightly reducing the overall material content of 
the automobile. This would have a small positive 
effect on the environment. No adverse impact on 
safety is anticipated. 

The agency has also considered the impacts of 
this rule under the Regulatory Flexibility Act. I 



PART 571; S108- 155 



certify that this rule will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. Accordingly, no regulatory flexibility 
analysis has been prepared. Manufacturers of 
motor vehicles and headlamps, those affected by 
the rule, are generally not small businesses 
within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility 
Act. Further, these manufacturers would be af- 
fected only to the extent that they elected to take 
advantage of the new headlighting option that is 
amended by the rule. The number of different com- 
ponents in the inventories of headlamp distribu- 
tors will increase, but not to the extent that any 
significant problem will be created. Finally, small 
organizations and governmental jurisdictions 
would be affected only to the extent that they 
choose to buy vehicles equipped with the new 
headlamps. The organization and jurisdictions 
making that choice would not be significantly af- 
fected by the price of the new headlamps. 

The agency believes that existing headlamp 
bulbs and plastic reflectors can meet the require- 
ment. Additional coats of lacquer on reflectors are 
an approach to improving corrosion resistance. 
The cost of lacquer coatings appears to be low. The 
agency therefore does not anticipate a significant 
cost impact as a result of this requirement. 

Because of the criticality of reflector integrity to 
headlamp performance and the relationship of the 
corrosion test to it, it is hereby found for good 
cause shown that an effective date earlier than 180 
days after issuance is in the public interest. Accor- 
dingly, the amendment is effective 30 days after 
publication in the FEDERAL REGISTER. 

In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR 
571.108, Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, 
Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equip- 
ment, is amended as follows: 

1. S4.1.1.36 is revised to read: 

S4.1.1.36 Instead of being equipped with a head- 
lighting system specified in Table I or Table III, a 
passenger car, multipurpose passenger vehicle, 
truck, bus, or motorcycle manufactured on or after 
July 1, 1983, may be equipped with a system of one 
or two replaceable bulb headlamps, if the vehicle is 
a motorcycle, or two replaceable bulb headlamps, 
if the vehicle is a passenger car, multipurpose 
passenger vehicle, truck, or bus, designed to con- 
form to the following requirements. 

2. S4. 1.1. 36(d)(4) is revised to read: 

(4) After a corrosion test conducted in accor- 
dance with S6.5, there shall be no evidence of 



external or internal corrosion or rust visible 
without magnification. Loss of adhesion of any ap- 
plied coating shall not occur more than 0.125 in (3.2 
mm) from any sharp edge on the inside or outside. 
Corrosion may occur on terminals only if the cur- 
rent produced during the test of paragraph S6.5(c) 
is not less than 9.7 amperes. 

3. S6.1 is amended to delete "S6.5". 

4. S6.5 is revised to read: 

S6.5 Corrosion, (a) A connector test shall be per- 
formed on each filament circuit prior to the test in 
subparagraph (b) according to Figure 1 of SAE 
Standard J580, August 1979. The power source 
shall be set to provide 12.8 volts and the resistance 
shall be set to produce 10 amperes. 

(b) The headlamp with connector attached to 
the terminals, unfixtured and in its designed 
operating attitude with all drain holes, breathing 
devices or other designed openings in their normal 
operating positions, shall be subjected to a salt 
spray (fog) test in accordance with ASTM Bl 17-73, 
"Method of Salt Spray (FOG) Testing," for a period 
of 240 hours, consisting of ten successive 24-hour 
intervals. During each interval, the headlamp shall 
be mounted in the middle of the chamber and ex- 
posed for 23 hours to the salt spray. The spray 
shall not be activated for the 24th hour. The bulb 
shall be removed from the headlamp and from the 
test chamber during the one hour of salt spray 
deactivation and reinserted for the start of the 
next test cycle, at the end of the first and last 
three 23-hour periods of salt spray exposure, and 
at the end of any two of the fourth through 
seventh 23 hour periods of salt-spray exposure. 
The test chamber shall be closed at all times ex- 
cept for a maximum of two minutes which is al- 
lowed for removal or replacement of a bulb during 
each cycle. After the ten cycles, the lens reflector 
unit without the bulb shall be immersed in deion- 
ized water for five minutes, then secured and 
allowed to dry by natural convection only. 

(c) Using the voltage, resistance and pretest 
setup of subparagraph (a), the current in each fila- 
ment circuit shall be measured after the test con- 
ducted in subparagraph (b). 

Issued on November 6, 1984. 

Diane K. Steed 
Administrator 

49 FR 44899 
November 13, 1984 



PART 571; S108-PRE 156 



PREAMBLE TO AN AMENDMENT TO 
FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 108 

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards: 
Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment 

[Docket No. 81-11; Notice 9] 



ACTION: Response to petition for reconsideration. 

SUMMARY: On November 13, 1984 {49 FR 44899). 
NHTSA amended Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 
No. 108 to alter the corrosion test requirements 
and procedures applicable to semi sealed replace- 
able bulb headlamps and lens/reflector compo- 
nents of such headlamps. The amendment was to 
become effective 30 days after publication in the 
Federal Register, i.e., December 13, 1984. Volkswa- 
gen of America, Inc., and its associated companies 
petitioned for reconsideration of the effective date 
to delay it until September 1, 1985, alleging insuffi- 
cient time for revised certification procedures and 
modification if required. NHTSA has granted this 
petition and adopted a new effective date of Sep- 
tember 1, 1985, to accord with manufacturer 
model-year practices and to alleviate any potential 
hardship to manufacturers of vehicles with re- 
placeable bulb headlamps. Given the limited use of 
these headlamps in 1985 model cars, the existing 
test continues to meet the need for motor vehicle 
safety for the remainder of the model years. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: September 1, 1985. 

ADDRESS: Petitions for Reconsideration should 
refer to the docket number and notice number and 
be submitted to: Administrator, National Highway 
Traffic Safety Administration, Nassif Building, 400 
Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jere 

Medlin, Office of Vehicle Safety Standards, Na- 
tional Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 
Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590, 
(202) 426-2720. 



SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The purpose 
of this notice is to postpone the effective date of 
the amended corrosion-test requirements and pro- 
cedures applicable to semi-sealed replaceable bulb 
headlamps and lens/reflector components of such 
headlamps. These were adopted on November 13, 
1984, with an effective date of December 13, 1984. 
Under the test currently in effect, a replaceable 
bulb headlamp is tested for corrosion in a salt 
spray chamber with the bulb inserted at all times. 
Under the amendment adopted on November 13, 
1984, effective December 13, 1984, the bulb is 
removed for the final hour of eight of the ten 
24-hour test cycles, thereby exposing the interior 
of the lamp to the corrosive influence of the salt 
spray in the test chamber. On November 15, 1984, 
Volkswagen of America on behalf of itself, Volks- 
wagen AG, and Audi NSU Auto Union AG peti- 
tioned for a delay in the effective date of the re- 
quirements to September 1, 1985. Its reasons were 
as follows. First, NHTSA has generally reserved 
short-time compliance schedules for relaxation of 
rules or optional procedures. Though installation 
of semi sealed headlamps is optional, those who 
are committed to using this technology for the 
1985-model year must meet new requirements 
with an extremely short lead time. Second, peti- 
tioner anticipated that the final rule was to have 
become effective with a long enough lead time for 
vendor contact and certification testing to the new 
corrosion-resistance requirements. Finally, the 
petitioner notes that the imposition of new re- 
quirements in the middle of a model year is highly 
unusual action for the agency to take, and that "it 
is clearly impossible for a manufacturer to com- 
plete all of the tests and judgments necessary in a 
mere 30 days and to replace or modify designs 



PART 571; S108-PRE 157 



without halting production on an entire model 
line." 

The agency reviewed Volkswagen's arguments. 
Because of the criticality of reflector integrity to 
headlamp performance and the relationship of cor- 
rosion tests to it, the agency had found initially 
that an early effective date was in the public in- 
terest. The agency was unaware that an early ef- 
fective date might have an adverse economic ef- 
fect. It wishes to lessen the economic impact that 
an early implementation of the amendment would 
have in the course of the 1985 model year. The use 
of semi sealed headlamps in the 1985 model year is 
not extensive, and the test that is currently 
specified in Standard No. 108 is deemed sufficient 
for motor vehicle safety, given the limited applica- 



tion of the new headlighting systems. Accordingly, 
the agency has granted Volkswagen's petition. 

In consideration of the foregoing, the effective 
date of the amendments to paragraphs S4. 1.1.36, 
S4.1.1.36(d)(4), S6.1, and S6.5 made at 49 FR 44901 
is changed from December 13, 1984, to September 
1, 1985. 

Issued on November 28, 1984. 



Howard M. Smolkin 
Acting Administrator 

49 F.R. 47396 
December 4, 1984 



PART 571; S108-PRE 158 



PREAMBLE TO AN AMENDMENT TO 
FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 108 

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; 
Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment 

[Docket No. 83-12; Notice 2] 



ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This rule adopts changes in rear 
yellow turn-signal photometries, license plate lamp 
requirements, minimum headlamp mounting 
heights, and test grids for stop, turn, parking, and 
tail lamps. The primary purpose of the amend- 
ments is to bring the requirements in Federal 
Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 closer to 
those of the Economic Commission for Europe of 
the United Nations (ECE). The amendments will 
permit cost savings without adversely affecting 
safety. A notice of proposed rulemaking on this 
subject was published on August 1, 1983. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 26. 1984. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Trade 
Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39) imposes 
certain obligations upon the United States. Under 
Title IV, Technical Barriers to Trade (Standards), 
Federal agencies may not engage in any standards- 
related activity that creates unnecessary obstacles 
to the foreign commerce of the United States. 
Agencies shall, in developing standards, take into 
consideration international standards and shall, if 
appropriate, base the standards on international 
standards unless it is not appropriate for safety (19 
U.S.C. 2532(2)(B)(i)). 

Differences exist between Federal Motor Vehi- 
cle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective 
Devices, and Associated Equipment, and many of 
the requirements of the ECE. Some of these dif- 
ferences could be removed or lessened without any 
adverse effect on traffic safety. This would relieve 
both American and European vehicle manufac- 
turers of some extra cost of designing and building 



vehicles for sale both in this country and Europe. 
It could also provide an opportunity to increase 
safety. Accordingly, as contemplated by the Trade 
Agreements Act, NHTSA proposed on August 1, 
1983, several amendments to Standard No. 108 to 
bring its requirements closer to those of the ECE 
(48 FR 34784). 

The first change proposed was a lower minimum 
value for the photometries in yellow rear turn- 
signal lamps. The current Federal requirement is 
for a minimum of 200 candela (cd) and a maximum 
of 750 cd; by contrast, the minimum in ECE 
Regulation No. 6 is 40 cd and the maximum is 200 
cd. During a meeting of The Brussels Working 
Group of Europe (GTB), it was recommended that 
the United States lower its minimum to 130 cd and 
that ECE raise its maximum to 350 cd. Tests con- 
ducted by the SAE have shown that a value of 130 
cd for a yellow lamp is as effective as a rear red 
turn-signal lamp (lamps of both colors are allowed 
by Standard No. 108) with an output of 80 cd. 
Standard No. 108 specifies a minimum of 80 cd for 
rear red turn signals. Since this value has been 
adequate for motor vehicle safety, NHTSA 
believes that the proposed value of 130 cd for 
yellow rear turn signals would not have an adverse 
effect on safety. 

It appears also that the differing ECE and U.S. 
requirements for license-plate lamps might be 
easily harmonized by adopting the latest SAE 
referenced standard on this item of equipment. 
Currently, Standard No. 108 specifies the physical 
and photometric relationship between the lamp or 
lamps, the plate and its holder but does not specify 
the point of measurement establishing the rela- 
tionship. A similar requirement is contained in 
ECE Regulation No. 4, except that a specific point 



PART 571; S108-PRE 159 



of measurement is included. SAE Standard J587f, 
"License Plate Lamps (Rear Registration Plate 
Lamps)," which was revised in 1981, clarifies the 
point of measurement of the incident light upon 
the plate in a manner identical to that of the ECE 
requirement. NHTSA therefore proposed the in- 
corporation of the revised version of J587 into 
Standard No. 108. 

NHTSA also proposed a reconciliation of dif- 
ferences in the minimum mounting height of 
headlamps. Standard No. 108 does not allow 
headlamps to be lower than 24 inches, measured 
from the road surface to the center of the lamp. 
The corresponding requirement in ECE Regula- 
tion No. 48 is 500 mm (19.7 inches) measured from 
the ground to the lower edge of the illuminating 
surface of the lamp. NHTSA proposed a harmoniz- 
ing value of 22 inches, measured from the road sur- 
face to the center of the lamp, except that the 
distance from the ground to the lower edge of the 
illuminating surface of the lamp shall not be less 
than 19.7 inches. 

The preamble to the proposal commented that 
there had been several studies of the effects that 
changes in mounting height have on seeing 
distances. The results from one of these studies 
suggested that mounting height has essentially no 
effect on seeing distance. The study presented the 
results from a series of experiments conducted by 
General Motors. The experiments consisted of ask- 
ing observers to count the number of simulated 
pedestrians that were visible using a variety of 
headlamp configurations. The configurations dif- 
fered on the basis of the type of headlamp and 
mounting height. 

The results from another study, however, sug- 
gested that mounting height has a more definite 
effect on seeing distance. This study reported on a 
series of experiments performed by General Elec- 
tric. In those experiments, the observers were 
riding in an automobile traveling at 40 mph. The 
observers were instructed to signal when they 
could see a target resting by the side of the road. 
The time of the signal and the speed of the 
automobile were used in estimating the distance to 
the target when it was first seen by the observer. 

GE conducted experiments with an experimen- 
tal headlamp having photometries differing from 
most production lamps. These experiments show- 
ed a loss in seeing distance, but the GM ex- 
periments showed very little difference when the 
24-inch height was reduced to as low as 18 inches. 



To aid the agency in assessing the issue of see- 
ing distance, the agency requested commenters to 
discuss the safety implications of this issue and the 
possible reasons for the conflict between the 
studies. 

NHTSA also proposed certain changes regard- 
ing stop, tail, turn signal, and parking lamps in the 
interests of harmonization. Photometries today 
are measured under Standard No. 108 at 27 dif- 
ferent test points on stop, tail, turn signal, and 
parking lamps. If all 27 points equal or exceed the 
required minimum, the lamp complies. ECE Regu- 
lation No. 7 also measures light output at discrete 
test points, the principal difference being that 
there are only 19 test points. There are fewer in- 
termediate test points in the European method. 
NHTSA believes that the eight test points in ques- 
tion could be deleted as sharp discontinuous 
changes in candlepower output across a lens sur- 
face do not occur in practice. 

Alternatively, the 27 test points are separated 
under Standard No. 108 into 7 groups or "zones" 
and minima are established for each zone. If 
photometries at a test point fall below the 
minimum, the lamp will nevertheless comply if the 
overall reading for the zone equals or exceeds the 
minimum value required for that zone. 

When using the pattern of seven zones that is 
currently specified in Standard No. 108, with the 
19 test points that were proposed, two zones have 
only a single point and two other zones have only 
two points. This small number of points in a zone 
tends to reduce the value of allowing an average 
over several points in lieu of meeting the minimum 
at each point. To avoid this difficulty, NHTSA pro- 
posed that only five zones be used. These five 
zones, using 19 points, and a corresponding table of 
values for each zone, expressed as a sum of the 
percentages of the minimum value at H-V, are 
presented in proposed Figure le. This change in 
the pattern of zones is necessary when the number 
of test points is changed from 27 to 19. 

There is also a difference in the method of 
presentation of the distribution of minimum values 
over the surface of the lamp which NHTSA also 
proposed to harmonize. In Standard No. 108, the 
distributions are given in four different tables, 
whereas ECE uses a common grid, along with a 
graphical and numerical representation of the loca- 
tion of the test points. ECE values are expressed 
as percentages of the minimum H-V value. It was 
proposed that Standard No. 108's values be 



PART 571; S108-PRE 160 



expressed in this fashion also. NHTSA decided 
that the least confusing way of adopting the test 
grid would be to substitute the pertinent portions 
of the text of the four SAE standards in question 
for the provisions currently incorporated by 
reference. 

Comments were received from 18 motor vehicle 
manufacturers, motor vehicle associations, 
lighting equipment manufacturers, and interested 
related organizations such as the Insurance In- 
stitute for Highway Safety and the Department of 
California Highway Patrol. 

All commenters discussing the proposed reduc- 
tion in minimum rear yellow turn-signal candela 
supported it. Several, however, recommended 
adopting SAE values for lamps containing two and 
three compartments. (The agency had proposed 
160 cd and 180 cd respectively, whereas the cor- 
responding SAE values are 150 and 175.) NHTSA 
agrees with these recommendations. The dif- 
ferences between NHTSA and SAE values arose 
from calculations in rounding off extrapolations 
from the single compartment value. If it is desired 
to maintain the ratio of 1.6:1, for example, the 
exact value for two compartment lamps is 152. 
NHTSA chose to propose 160 cd, whereas the SAE 
adopted 150 cd. The SAE value is a mathematical- 
ly correct way of rounding off the value, and is 
closer to the desired ratio. Accordingly, proposed 
Figure lb is adopted with the revised values. The 
Notice erroneously proposed a maximum of 900 
candela for both two- and three-compartmented 
yellow rear turn-signal lamps; the proper figure 
for the three compartment lamp that should have 
been proposed was 1050 cd, and Figure lb as 
adopted corrects the error. 

In commenting on the proposed adoption of the 
license-plate-lamp revision of SAE J587, it was 
pointed out that the version of August 1981 was 
never widely disseminated and never appeared in 
an SAE Handbook, whereas a version dated Oc- 
tober 1981 has been. Only a minor editorial change 
distinguished the two versions. Therefore, Stan- 
dard No. 108 is being amended to adopt the later 
version. In amending Tables I and III to specify 
J587 October 1981, the agency has taken the op- 
portunity to correct erroneous footnotes and 
delete outdated ones. NHTSA wishes to clarify 
that, in accordance with paragraph S5.1 of Stan- 
dard No. 108, the SAE J575 tests cross-referenced 
in SAE J587 are those of SAE J575e. 

Similarly, a typographical error in proposed 



Figure lb is corrected where the first two test 
points given in the proposal were "20U, 20D." The 
Figure adopted (Figure la) gives the correct ones: 
"lOU, lOD," as well as adopting specific percen- 
tages of minima for turn-signal, stop, parking, and 
tail lamps. 

Comments were varied on the proposed reduc- 
tion in mounting height. Four commenters, Califor- 
nia Highway patrol. Insurance Institute for 
Highway Safety, K-D Lamp Co., and the Auto Club 
of Southeast Ohio disagreed with the proposal. 
The principal ground of objection was the opinion 
that the reduction would have an adverse effect on 
seeing ability. Nine commenters, including the ma- 
jor motor vehicle manufacturers, agreed with the 
proposal in principle, but there was a split of opin- 
ion as to the preferred method of measurement. 
Three supported NHTSA's proposed dual method 
of measurement of 22 inches from lamp center to 
the roadway surface but not less than 19.7 inches 
to the lower edge of the illuminating surface 
(equivalent to the European metric method of ex- 
pression). The remaining six commenters thought 
that the dual method was unnecessarily redun- 
dant, three supporting the 22-inch measurement, 
and the other three, the European method. 

The agency has given considerable attention to 
the mounting-height comments, and reviewed all 
of the data relevant to this issue, particularly com- 
ments to the docket. Ford, GM and MVMA each 
reported upon their analytic studies of the effect of 
mounting height on seeing distance. Ford stated 
that its CHESS model, which evaluates headlamp 
performance, showed that "there is no significant 
change in the overall performance of a headlamp 
when its height is changed from 24 inches to 22 
inches. Though there is a very small decrement in 
seeing distance as represented by a minuscule drop 
in the percentage of delineation detected . . . this is 
compensated in the overall performance by a 
similarly small decrement in the percent of drivers 
discomforted" due to less glare with a lower 
mounted headlamp. 

GM's comments included a short analysis of the 
effect of a 2-inch reduction in headlamp mounting 
height. GM's analysis considered the theoretical 
change in seeing distance by calculating where the 
light would strike the road with a mounting height 
of 24 inches (229.5 feet) and a height of 22 inches 
(210.4 feet). According to GM's calculation, the 
2-inch reduction in mounting height would 
theoretically cause the "seeing light" at the 



PART 571; S108-PRE 161 



photometric test point of 0.5° down, 1.5° right, to 
strike the pavement 19.1 feet closer to the car. 

However, according to GM, since the illumina- 
tion of the light on the target is proportional to the 
inverse square of the distance between the light 
source and the target, the light striking the pave- 
ment at the point closer to the car would be 
brighter. Since the driver's ability to detect the 
target is dependent on the quantity of light falling 
on it, there is an intermediate distance where the 
light coming from the lamp at the 22-inch mount- 
ing height will have the same brightness as the 
lamp mounted at 24 inches does at 229.2 feet. GM 
calculations showed this to be at 224.5 feet down 
the road and, therefore, GM contends that a better 
estimate of the change in seeing distance would be 
a decrease of only 4.7 feet (229.2 feet - 224.5 feet). 

MVMA conducted a series of computations 
utilizing the UMTRI computer program. MVMA 
found seeing distance reductions between 2.19 and 
4.86 percent (approximately 4 to 10 feet) when 
using current headlamp designs. MVMA conclud- 
ed that "the small variation of a few percent in 
threshold seeing distance attendant to a reduction 
in the headlamp mounting height will not alter 
driver safety." No other commenters provided 
new experimental data or analyses. 

The agency has determined that the reduction 
in seeing distance that is attributable to a reduc- 
tion of minimum mounting height to 22 inches 
would not have a significant effect upon safety. 
Other factors occurring on the road could have the 
same or greater effect on headlamp performance. 
These could include loading a vehicle with passen- 
gers, fuel, or cargo unevenly so as to lower the 
rear of the car, thus raising the angle of headlamp 
aim. At distances of 210-230 feet, the effect of 
changing the headlamps aim could be far greater 
than the effect of lowering headlamp height by 2 
inches. Further, as Ford illustrated with the 
CHESS model, a possible beneficial effect upon 
safety would be the concomitant reduction in glare 
that a lower mounting height presents. Therefore, 
NHTSA has decided to adopt the proposal for a 
reduction in minimum mounting height. 

The remaining issue, therefore, is the method by 
which the mounting height should be measured. 
After due consideration of the comments, NHTSA 
has decided that measuring the mounting height 
from the road surface to the center of the lens is 
the most reasonable approach. In comments to the 
NPRM docket on headlamp mounting height. Ford 



urged adoption of the 2-inch reduction in mounting 
height, but opposed adding a limit to the height of 
the bottom edge of a headlamp. Ford states that 
"there is no safety need to justify such a limitation 
on the height of the bottom edge of a headlamp 
when the center is specified; it is unnecessarily 
design restrictive; and, practically, the pendulum 
impact test of Part 581 of Title 49 of the Code of 
Federal Regulations, the Bumper Standard effec- 
tively limits the height of the bottom edge of a 
headlamp." The Bumper Standard specifies a pen- 
dulum impact test along a vehicle's front surface at 
any height from 16 to 20 inches above the ground, 
with no damage permitted to any lamp or reflec- 
tive device except license-plate lamps. However, 
the impact-test pendulum has a relatively flat, 
4.5-inch-high by 16-inch-wide surface, and 
headlamps could conceivably be recessed within a 
vehicle's bumper area and protected from pen- 
dulum impact. Several current vehicles have park- 
ing and turn signal-lamps recessed with the 
bumper, which illustrates this point. Therefore, 
NHTSA does not believe that the Bumper Stan- 
dard effectively establishes a lower limit for 
headlamp mounting height. 

The Department of California Highway Patrol 
(CHP) also commented on headlamp mounting 
height. CHP showed by example the inequity of 
the ECE method of measuring minimum headlamp 
height. CHP states that a potentially high-per- 
formance headlamp with a 7-inch vertical dimen- 
sion would be required to have its center at 23.2 
inches according to ECE regulations. On the other 
hand, it would permit the center of a less powerful 
3.25-inch-high GM-proposed sealed beam unit to be 
only 21.3 inches above the ground, or 1.9 inches 
lower. CHP further stated that the proposed regu- 
lation would allow the smaller headlamps that had 
the lesser photometric performance to be mounted 
lower, providing a potentially greater reduction in 
seeing distance in comparison to the larger head- 
lamps. Since the NPRM would not allow the center 
of a headlamp to be mounted lower than 22 inches, 
a less powerful 3.25-inch-high lamp could only be 
mounted at 22 inches rather than the 21.3 inches 
calculated by the CHP. However, as the CHP 
noted, the more powerful and taller headlamp 
would be required to have its center at 23.2 inches. 
Therefore, the taller headlamp would have to be 
mounted at a higher height and would be unfairly 
penalized if the ECE method were adopted in con- 
junction with a center-of-lens-to-roadway 



PART 571; S108-PRE 162 



mounting height of 22 inches. Accordingly, this 
notice adopts a new minimum headlamp mounting 
height of 22 inches measured from the center of 
the lens to the road surface. 

Comments to the docket on the proposed test 
grid amendments centered on three issues: the 
reduction of the number of test points from 27 to 
19, the reduction of the number of zonal groups 
from 7 to 5, and the method of expressing the in- 
tensity of light at each test point as a percentage 
of the minimum H-V value. 

Those commenters addressing the issue of the 
reduction of test points supported the agency's 
proposal, and the amendment is adopted. Conse- 
quently, the agency will test photometries of stop, 
tail, turn-signal, and parking lamps on the basis of 
the 19 test points. While there was general agree- 
ment that the number of zones be reduced from 
seven to five, there was a difference of opinion as 
to the merits of the zones proposed by NHTSA, 
and those under consideration by the SAE in its 
proposed J586. Lighting equipment manufacturers 
generally favored the NHTSA scheme, while 
motor vehicle manufacturers preferred the SAE 
design. According to the motor vehicle manufac- 
turers, the SAE zones consist of grouped test 
points with similar intensities. For example, the 
SAE's Zone 1 for stop lamps contains four test 
points with intensities of 16, 10, 10, and 16 candela, 
whereas NHTSA's Zone 2 for stop lamps contained 
three test points of 8, 8, and 28 candela. Ford 
Motor Co. stated that a more even pattern of light 
output will result from grouping points of similar 
intensities, and that on a grouping of test points 
with dissimilar intensities, a small variation in in- 
tensity of test points with higher nominal value of 
intensities can substantially alter the zonal sum. 
NHTSA has concurred with this recommendation 
and, to insure a more even pattern of light output, 
is adopting the SAE zone proposals. 

However, the majority of comments were ad- 
dressed to the third issue, the proposal to establish 
test point intensity values based on a percentage 
of the H-V test point value. Of the 13 com- 
ments received, only 1 one in full agreement. 
Two disagreed with the proposal. The remaining 
comments varied. Commenters basically agreed 
with the concept of a percentage approach but 
recommended that the test point values not be 
lower than current SAE values. It was pointed out 
that the NHTSA proposal adopting European 
rules would, in fact, lead to candela values for 



many of the test points that are lower than current 
minima required by Standard No. 108. One com- 
menter recommended that the agency delay final 
rulemaking until the SAE approach on intensity 
values is reviewed. 

The agency has carefully reviewed these com- 
ments. In reexamining the ECE and proposed 
NHTSA test grids, 15 common test points were 
found. In comparing values, NHTSA found that 
those for parking lamps would remain the same, 
but that lower values than are required at present 
would exist at all 15 test points for stop, tail, and 
turn signal lamps. 

Although adoption of the proposal would come 
closest to achieving harmonization by using both 
the European test grid and the percentage values 
at the H-V point, the agency has concluded that 
this approach would not be in the interest of motor 
vehicle safety. Instead, it has adopted percentage 
values that are equivalent to those presently ex- 
isting in Standard No. 108 for the four lamps in 
question. This will achieve a measure of har- 
monization, while insuring that the present level of 
lighting safety in the United States is not affected, 
and represents, the agency believes, a reasonable 
compromise. 

NHTSA has considered this rule and has deter- 
mined that it is not major within the meaning of 
Executive Order 12291 "Federal Regulation" or 
significant under Department of Transportation 
regulatory policies and procedures, and that 
neither a regulatory impact analysis nor a full 
regulatory evaluation is required. However, a final 
regulatory evaluation has been prepared and has 
been placed in the docket. The rule would impose 
no additional requirements but would permit 
manufacturers greater flexibility in design of 
motor vehicles and lighting equipment. The agen- 
cy cannot predict the extent to which the manufac- 
turers would utilize that flexibility. 

NHTSA has analyzed this rule for the purposes 
of the National Environmental Policy Act. The 
amendment should have no effect on the human en- 
vironment since the weight and quantity of 
materials used in the manufacture of head lamps is 
not changed. No impact on safety is anticipated. 

The agency has also considered the impacts of 
this rule in relation to the Regulatory Flexibility 
Act. I certify that this rule would not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities. Accordingly, no 
regulatory flexibility analysis has been prepared. 



PART 571; S108-PRE 163 



Manufacturers of motor vehicles and lighting 
equipment, those affected by the proposal, are 
generally not small businesses within the meaning 
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. Finally, small 
organizations and governmental jurisdictions 
would not be significantly affected since the price 
of new vehicles and lighting equipment will be 
minimally impacted. 

In consideration of the foregoing 49 CFR 
571.108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and 
Associated Equipment, is amended as set forth 
below. 

1. Paragraph S4.1.1.11 is removed, and a new 
paragraph S4.1.1.11 is added to read: 

S4.1.1.11 A parking lamp, taillamp, stop lamp, 
or turn-signal lamp shall meet the minimum 
percentage specified in Figure la of the corre- 
sponding minimum allowable value specified in 
Figure lb. The maximum candlepower output of 
each stop, turn signal, tail and parking lamp shall 
not exceed that prescribed in Figure lb. The 
values specified in Figure la and Figure lb are 
substituted for those specified in Table I of the 
following SAE Standards: J222 Parking Lamps, 
J585e; Taillamps (at H or above), J586c Stop lamps 
and J588e; Turn Signal Lamps. 



2. Paragraph S4.1.1.12 is removed, and a new 
paragraph S4. 1.1.12 is added to read: 

S4.1.1.12 A parking lamp, taillamp, stop lamp or 
turn signal lamp is not required to meet the 
minimum photometric value at each test point 
specified in this standard if the sum of the percen- 
tage of the minimum candlepower measured at the 
test points is not less than that specified for each 
group listed in Figure Ic. 

3. The references to "Figure 1" in paragraphs 
S4.3.1.1 and S4.3.1.7 are changed to "Figure Ic". 

4. Figure 1 is removed and new Figures la, lb, 
and Ic are added as follows: 

Because of the importance of implementing the 
policy of the Trade Agreements Act, it is hereby 
found for good cause shown than an effective date 
earlier than 180 days after issuance is in the public 
interest, and the amendments are effective 30 
days after publication in the Federal Register. 

Issued on November 15, 1984. 

Diane K. Steed 
Administrator 

49 F.R. 46386 
November 26, 1984 



PART 571; S108-PRE 164 



Test points (deg) 


Turn 
Signal 


Stop 


Party- 
ing 








Tail 


10U, 100 


5L, 5R 

20U 20R 

10L, 10R 

V 

10L. 10R 

5L.5R 

V 


20 
12.5 
37.5 
875 

50 
100 
100 


20 
12.5 
375 
87.5 
50 
100 
100 


20 
10 
20 
70 
35 
90 
100 


20 


5U, 5D 


15 
40 


h 


90 

40 

100 

100 



Figure la.— Required percentages of mir>imum candlepow- 
er of Figure lb. 



Lamp 



Stop 

Tail 

Parking 

Rod turn signal 

Yellow turn signal rear . 
Yellow turn stgnal front 
Yellow turn signal front 



Lighted Sections 



80/300 
2/18 
4.0 

80/300 
130/750 
200/ 
500/ 



2 



95/360 
3.5/20 



95/360 
150/900 
240/ 
600/ 



110/420 
5.0/25 



110/420 
175/1050 
275/ 
685/ 



Figure lb.— Minimum and maximum allowable candlepower 
values. 

' Values shall apply whon the optical axis (filament center) 
of the front-turn signal is at a spacing less than 4 inches (10 
centimeters) from the lighted edge of the headlamp unit 
providing the lower beam, or from the lighted edge of any 
additional lamp Installed as ongina! equipment or used in lieu 
of the lower beam. 



Group and test points 



1 10U-5L. 5U-20L, 5D-20L. 
10D-5L 

2 5U-10L. H-10L. 5D-10L... 

3 H-5L, 5U-V. H-V. 5D-V. 
H-5R 

4 5U-10R, H-10R. 5D-10R... 

5 10U-5R, 5U-20R, 50- 
20R, 10D-5R 



Turn 
signal 



65 
125 

475 
125 

65 



Stop 



65 
125 

475 
125 

65 



Park- 
ing 



60 
75 

420 
75 

60 



Tall 



70 

120 

480 
120 

70 



Fiqure 1c. — Sum of tfte percentages of grouped minimum 
candlepower. 

5. Tables I and III, and the entry 
"Headlamps" in Tables II and IV are 
revised as follows: 



PART 571; S108-PRE 165 



Table I.— Required Motor Vehicle Lighting Equipment 

Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles, Trucks. Trailers, and Buses, of 80 or More Inches Overall Width 



Hem 



Multipurpose passenger vehicles, 
trucks, and buses 



Trailers 



Applicable SAE 

standard or 

recommended 

practice 



Headlamps.. 



Taillamps' 

Stoplamps^ 

License-plate 

lamp^ 

Reflex reflectors. 
Side-marker 

lamps 

Backup lamp' 

Turn-signal 
Iamp2 

Turn-signal 

operating unit^ 
Turn-signal 

flasher 

Vehicular-hazard 

warning-signal 

operating unit.. 
Vehicular-hazard 

warning-signal 

flasher 

Identification 

lamps 

Clearance lamps. 
Intermediate side 

marker lamps'*.. 
Intermediate 

side reflex 

reflectors^ 

' See S4 1.1.10 



white, 7-inch, Type 2 headlamp units; 
or 2 white, S^-inch, Type 1 head- 
lamp units and 2 white 5% -inch, Type 
2 headlamp units; or 2 white Type 2A 
headlamp units and 2 white Type 1A 
headlamp units. 

white headlamps: Type 2B1 or Type 
2D1; Of 4 white headlamps: 2 each 
Type 1C1 and Type 2C1, or Type 
1A1 and Type 2A1. 



2red 

2red 

1 white 

4 red; 2 amber 

4 red; 2 amber 

1 white 

2 red or amber; 2 amber 

1 

1 

1 

1 

3 amber; 3 red 

2 amber; 2 red 

2 amber 

2 amber 

* See S4.1. 1.1 1-12. 'SoeS4.5.6 



None.. 



2 rod 

2 red 

1 white 

4 red; 2 amber. 

2 red; 2 amber. 

None 

2 red or amber 

None 

None 

None 

None 

3 red 

2 amber; 2 red... 

2 amber 

2 amber 

♦See S4 1.1.3 



JSeOa, June 1966; 
J579a, August 
1965; J571d June 
1976; and J566, 
January i960 

J580b, Febnjary 
1974; J579C, 
December 1974; 
J571d, June 1976, 
J1132, January 
1976. 

J585e, September 
1977. 

J586C, August 1970 

J587, October 1981. 
J594f, January 1977. 

J592e, July 1972. 
J593c, February 
1968. 

J588e, September 
1970. 

J589, April 1964. 

J590b, October 1965. 



J910, January 1966. 



J945, February 1966. 

J592e, July 1972. 
J592e, July 1972. 

J592e, July 1972. 



J594f, January 1977. 



PART 571; S108-PRE 166 



Table II.— Location of Required Equipment— Muliipurpose Passenger 
Vehicles, Trucks, Trailers, and Buses, of 80 Inches or More Overall Width 



ttem 



Col. 1 



Multipurpose passenger veh^:les, 
taicks, and buses 



Col. 2 



Trailers 



Col. 3 



Height above road surface 

measured from center of (tem 

on vehicle at curt) weight 

Col. 4 



Headlamps On the front, each type at ttie 

same height, 1 on each side of 
the vertical centerline; as far 
apart as practicable. 



Not required . 



Not less than 22 in (55.9 cm) 
nor more than 54 inches 
(137.2 cm). 



PART 571; S108-PRE 167 



Table III.— Required Motor Vehicle Lighting Equipment 

All Passenger Cars and Motorcycles, and Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles, Trucks, and Buses, of Less Than 80 Inches 

Overall Width 



Item 



Passenger cars, multipurpose 

passenger veh(Cles, trucks, and 

buses 



Trailers 



Motorcycles 



Applicable SAE 

standard or 

recommended 

f)ractice 



Headlamps . 



Taillamps ' . 



Stoplamps ' 

High-mounted 

stoplamp 

License-plate 

lampi 

Parking lamps^. 



Reflex reflectors... 
Intermediate 

side reflex 

reflectors^ 

Intermediate side 

marker lamps^.. 
Side marker 

lamps 

Backup lamp 



Turn-signal 

lamps^ 

Turn-signal 

operating 

unit^'' 

Turn-signal 

flasher 

Vehicular-hazard 

warning-signal 

operating unit... 
Vehicular-hazard 

warning-signal 

flasher 



2 white, 7-inch, Type 2 head- 
lamp units, or 2 white, 5^4- 
inch, Tyf>e 1 headlamp units 
or 2 white, 5%-inch, Type 2A 
headlamp units and 2 white 
Type 1A headlamp units. 

2 white headlamps: Type 2B1 or 
Type 2D1; or 4 white head- 
lamps: 2 each Type 1C1 and 
Type 2C1, Of Type 1A1 and 
Type 2A1. 



2 red. 
2 red. 



1 red, for passenger cars only . 

1 white 

2 amber or white 



4 red; 4 amber.. 



2 amber. 
2 amt>er. 



2 red; 2 amber . 
1 wtiite 



2 red or amber; 2 amber. 



2 red. 
2 red.. 



Not required . 



1 white. 
None 



4 red; 2 amber. 



2 amt)er.. 
2 amber.. 



2 red; 2 amber. 
None 



2 red or amber.. 



None.. 
None.. 



Nofw.. 
None.. 



1 white . 



1 red. 



1 red. 



Not required . 



1 white. 
None 



3 red; 2 amt)ef. 

None 

Nof>e 



None.. 
None.. 



2 amber; 2 red or 
amber 



None.. 



None.. 



J580a, June 1956; 
J579a, August 
1965; J571d, June 
1976; and J566, 
January 1960. 

J580b, February 

1974; J579C, 

December 1974; 

J571d. June 1976; 

J1132, January 

1976. 
J584, April 1964; and 

J566, January 

1960. 
J5e5e, September 

1977. 
J586C, August 1970. 

J 186a, September 

1977. 
J587, October 1981. 
J222, December 

1970. 
J594f, January 1977. 



J594f, January 1977. 

J592e, July 1972. 

J592e, July 1972. 
J593c, February 
1968. 



J588e. September 

1970. 
J589, April 1964. 

J590b, October 1965. 



J910, January 1966. 
J945. February 1966. 



' See S4.1. 1.10. • See S4.1. 1.11-12. » See S4.5.6. ♦ See S4.1.1.5. »See S4.1.1.3. 



PART 571; S108-PRE 168 



Table IV.— Location of Required Equipment All Passenger Cars and 
motorcycles,and multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, trailers, and 
Buses of Less Than 80 Inches Overall Width 



Item 



Co(. 1 



Passenger cars, multipurpose 

passenger vehicles, trucks, 

tratlers, and buses 

Col. 2 



Motorcycles 



Col. 3 



Heigtit atKJve road surface 

measured from center of item 

on vehicle at curt weight 

Col. 4 



Headlamps On the front, each type at the 

same height, 1 on each side of 
the vertical cen'erline; as far 
apart as practicable. 



On the front, on tfie vertical cen- 
terline, except that If two are 
used they shall t>e symetncally 
disposed about the vertical 
centerline. 



Not less than 22 in. (55.9 cm) 
nor more than 54 inches 
(137.2 cm). 



PART 571; S108-PRE 169-170 



PREAMBLE TO AN AMENDMENT TO 
FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 108 

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; 

Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment 

[Docket No. 8404; Notice 2] 



ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This notice amends Safety Standard 
No. 108 to allow motor vehicles to be equipped 
with a new four-lamp rectangular sealed beam 
headlamp system smaller than that currently 
allowed. A notice of proposed rulemaking 
("NPRM") on This subject was published on April 
30, 1984 (49 FR 18321). 

The system, to be known as Type F, consists of 
two lamps which produce lower beam light and 
two lamps which produce upper beam light. The 
system will not utilize the supplementary upper 
beam from the lower beam headlamp as is the 
practice in current four-lamp systems. 

Type F headlamps, though mechanically aim- 
able, do not incorporate traditional lens-mounted 
aiming pads, and a special aimer adapter has been 
designed for the system. Because the aiming and 
seating planes are identical, the minimum amount 
of rquired horizontal aim is reduced from plus or 
minus 4 degrees to plus or minus 2 1/2 degrees. 

The weight and volume of Type F headlamps 
are about half those of headlamps used in current 
four-lamp rectangular headlamp systems and the 
new system therefore offers the prospect of im- 
proved fuel economy through lighter vehicle 
weight and more aerodynamic front end design. 

This notice completes initial rulemaking action 
implementing the agency's grant of petitions for 
rulemaking by General Motors Corporation, which 
developed the system, and American Motors 
Corporation. A second notice of proposed rule- 
making on issues of simultaneous use of Type F 
headlamps, co-aiming and optional availability 
of an auxiliary filament will be published 
shortly. 



EFFECTIVE DATE: July 1, 1985. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On April 30, 
1984, NHTSA published a notice of proposed 
rulemaking implementing grants of petitions for 
rulemaking submitted by General Motors Corpora- 
tion (GM) and American Motors Corporation 
(AMC) to amend Standard No. 108 to permit the 
use of new, smaller, rectangular sealed beam 
headlamps in a four-lamp system. GM, which 
developed the system, believes that it offers im- 
provements in lower and upper beam photometric 
output, and improved aiming characteristics. 
Because of reduction in weight and volume, the 
system offers the potential for improved aero- 
dynamics and enhancement of fuel economy. Com- 
ments were received from eight manufacturers of 
vehicles or lighting equipment, the Motor Vehicle 
Manufacturers Association (MVMA) and the 
California Highway Patrol (CHP). 

Characteristics of the GM System 

The new four-lamp rectangular sealed-beam 
system features headlamps with upper and lower 
beam performance which is different than that cur- 
rently required. The supplementary upper beam 
traditionally found in four lamp systems is not 
necessary for the system to meet photometric re- 
quirements for the upper beam. NHTSA chose to 
designate the lamp as Type F with a prefix in- 
dicating its function, "UF" for the upper beam 
Type F, and "LF" for the lower beam Type F. Each 
Type F headlamp is of a size, 92 mm x 150 mm, 
such that its overall volume and weight are ap- 
proximately half those of headlamps used in the 
current 4 1/2 " x 6" four-lamp rectangular system 
(Types lAl and 2A1). Thus, there is an inherent 



PART 571; S108-PRE 171 



potential for more aerodynamic front ends fea- 
turing the new lighting system which, together 
with the lower weight of the system and its mount- 
ing hardware, offer the opportunity for improved 
fuel economy. 

Upper Beam Performance 

Auxiliary Filament 

One feature of the original system that was re- 
quested by GM was an auxiliary filament in the 
lower beam lamp that would provide some light 
during upper beam operation. 

The primary photometric contribution of this 
35-watt, auxiliary filament would be to provide "in- 
cidental" light (5000 cd max, 1500 cd min) at the 
brightest light intensity test point (H-V). However, 
the upper beam lamp alone could meet the require- 
ment at this test point as well as all other test 
points. 

GM said that there were four other possible 
reasons for an auxiliary upper beam filament to be 
located in the lower beam lamp: 

1. To serve as a heating element to prevent ice 
from forming on the lower beam lamp during up- 
per beam use. 

2. To mark the outside, leading edges of the 
vehicle during upper beam use. 

3. To be use as a daytime front running lamp. 

4. To prevent the owner from perceiving that 
there is less available light during upper beam use. 

GM did not believe that the auxiliary filament 
was necessary for upper beam enhancement, 
heating purposes, or edge delineation, but it could 
be offered as a driver option to allow consumers to 
have a choice between more light or better fuel 
economy during upper beam use or, alternatively, 
to be used as a daytime running light. GM's wish to 
offer the auxiliary filament as a driver option was 
not accepted by NHTSA in the NPRM because no 
requirements were recommended, and NHTSA 
did not desire to propose additional requirements 
for switching and "tell-tales" that advise the 
driver about what headlamp elements would be in 
operation. Without proper advisories and switch- 
ing safeguards, driver confusion and misuse could 
result. 

Since the upper beam lamps alone could meet 
current upper beam photometric requirements 
NHTSA proposed use of upper beam lamps alone 
as one option during upper beam operation. 
NHTSA also proposed the option of using the 



lower beam lamp along with the upper beam lamp 
during upper beam selection. Since the 35-watt, 
auxiliary filament in the lower beam lamp pro- 
vided only incidental light with low light-energy 
efficiency, the agency rejected use of this filament 
during ordinary upper or lower beam operation. 
However, the auxiliary filament could conceivably 
serve as a daytime running light, a concept under 
consideration in Canada, and the NPRM proposed 
that an auxiliary filament could be incorporated 
and used for that purpose. 

In an initial response to the NPRM, GM stated 
that there were several good reasons for 
eliminating the auxiliary filament in the lower 
beam lamp. First, the NPRM proposed that this 
filament would be permitted to be used only as a 
daytime running lamp, and GM had found alter- 
native methods of producing such a light at lower 
operating wattages. Eliminating the auxiliary fila- 
ment would eliminate filament shadow and im- 
prove lamp reliability and durability. Therefore, 
on May 11, 1984, GM directed a letter to NHTSA 
and 41 other headlamp manufacturers, users, and 
researchers noting that GM intended to recom- 
mend eliminating the auxiliary filament and in- 
viting comment on that recommendation. 

On May 30, 1984, GM recommended deletion of 
the auxiliary filament instead of allowing it as an 
option as the NPRM had proposed. GM pointed out 
that this would eliminate the need to develop and 
provide two versions of the lower beam head- 
lamp—one with and one without the auxiliary fila- 
ment. GM noted that the proposed upper beam 
headlamp could be used as a daytime running light 
by electronically reducing the power consumption 
to 16 watts per upper beam lamp, which would pro- 
vide a better lamp for that purpose since it would 
provide more efficient light with appropriate beam 
pattern, rather than "extraneous" or "incidental" 
auxiliary beam light. Other claimed advantages for 
eliminating the auxiliary beam were savings due 
to fewer connections and leakage paths in the 
lower beam lamp, a smaller-diameter bulb tube 
that might allow longer lamp life, lower piece cost, 
and less capital investment. 

Seven other commenters recommended deletion 
of the auxiliary filament (Lucas Industries, VW, 
GE, Ford, AMC, CHP, and MVMA with the excep- 
tion of Chrysler), citing advantages similar to 
those stated by GM and noting no disadvantages. 
The CHP stated they were not "overwhelmed by 
the ethereal reasons for lighting all four lamps" 



PART 571; S108-PRE 172 



that were given by car manufacturers at the time 
these lamps were introduced, and therefore had no 
objection to deleting the auxiliary filament. 
Chrysler requested an opportunity to incorporate 
an auxiliary filament in the headlamp system so 
that such a filament could be used as a potential 
daytime running light in Canada. Chrysler's 
analysis indicated that incorporating the auxiliary 
filament might be significantly more cost efficient 
than adding supplemental lamps. 

Sylvania believed that from a safety standpoint, 
it may be unwise not to emit light from the lower 
beam headlamp during upper beam selection 
because this lamp is installed at the outside edges 
of vehicles and serves as an indicator of car posi- 
tion for on-coming drivers. Because of these fac- 
tors, Sylvania believed that elimination or the op- 
tional use of this capability to illuminate the lower 
beam lamp be given careful thought. 

NHTSA considered all the above comments, and 
has decided not to incorporate the proposed aux- 
iliary filament in the lower beam lamp since its 
removal offers overall better headlamp perfor- 
mance, and viable alternatives appear to exist for 
daytime running lights. Sylvania's recommenda- 
tion to use the proposed auxiliary filament for 
edge delineation was considered along with other 
comments regarding the optional use of either the 
upper beam lamp alone or both the upper beam 
lamp and main lower beam filament during upper 
beam selection. NHTSA believes that there are no 
other safety reasons for mandating the use of the 
outer lamp as discussed below: 

• As designed by GM the new system does not 
need the illumination assistance of the "extra" 
filaments, requiring only the single upper 
beam filaments to perform as well as many 
other lamps currently available. 

• When four headlamp systems were first in- 
troduced, front parking lamps were not re- 
quired to be illuminated when the headlamps 
were on. At that time, it probably seemed 
reasonable that the illuminated outboard 
lower beam headlamps marked the edge of 
the vehicle. Parking lamps are now required 
to be on and help perform this edge marking 
function. 

• Additionally, when the upper beams are on, it 
is unlikely that side markers lamps and possi- 
bly the parking lamps would be seen, because 
of positional and contrast problems. Thus the 



relationship of the vehicle width and the in- 
board headlamp location would still be un- 
known to the oncoming driver. But it is also 
unlikely that upper beams would be on when 
oncoming drivers are close enough to need to 
know where the front corner of the opposing 
vehicle is. 

• Another reason suggested in the comments 
for illumination of the lower beam lamp is to 
provide heat to prevent ice from forming on 
the lower beam lens while using the upper 
beam. While this may have been the argu- 
ment for lighting the low beam when four- 
lamp systems were initially developed in the 
1950's, the agency knows of no data which 
support the need to provide, by regulation, a 
solution to a problem of ice forming on a lens 
that is temporarily not in use. 

• Thus, while there may be historical pre- 
cedence for having the outer lower beam 
headlamp illuminated during upper beam use, 
there appears to be no valid safety-oriented 
basis to require it. 

For the reasons discussed above, NHTSA has 
determined that an auxiliary filament is not 
needed in the Type LF lamp and therefore that 
feature of the April 30, 1984, NPRM has not been 
adopted. However, in light of the interest shown 
by at least one manufacturer (Chrysler) in incor- 
porating such a filament on an optional basis, the 
agency will seek, in a notice to be issued shortly, 
additional comments as to whether to permit the 
inclusion of an auxiliary filament. 

Simultaneous Use 

More efficient and potentially effective light for 
upper beam enhancement seemed available from 
the main lower beam filament in the lower beam 
lamp. Instead of providing light to the right and 
above the road as the auxiliary beam would, the 
lower beam would provide significant additional 
light on the road, and add significant spread light 
to further illuminate the roadway shoulders. Using 
this filament during upper beam selection would 
also eliminate any potential concern about ice for- 
mation, edge delineation, or less available light. 
Preliminary GM test data were examined to 
evaluate potential upper beam photometric com- 
pliance problems in using this approach. NHTSA 
concluded that the probability of exceeding the 
two current maximum values, 75,000 cd. and 7,500 



PART 571; S108-PRE 173 



cds. respectively, for the brightest light intensity 
test point (H-V) and the foreground light test point 
(4D-V) was very low. Both the lower beam and the 
upper beam are limited in total output at or near 
the point of highest intensity (H-V), production 
practices tend to limit the number of very high 
output lamps, and the likelihood of four very high 
output lamps being placed on the same vehicle was 
considered to be vey low. Therefore, NHTSA pro- 
posed that manufacturers have a second option of 
using both the main lower beam filament and the 
upper beam lamp during upper beam operation 
and requested comment on the feasibility of this 
approach. 

Data submitted by GM on pre-production lamps 
have shown, contrary to NHTSA's belief, that some 
photometric maxima values may be exceeded dur- 
ing the simultaneous use of the upper and lower 
beams. The CHP also expressed its concern ove 
the potential for this. Therefore, NHTSA has 
decided to reconsider this proposal in a separate 
notice of proposed rulemaking. 

Photometric Performance 

In the April 30, 1984, Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking, it was proposed that the upper beam 
light of the Type F system would be produced by 
only one of the two lamps on each side of the vehi- 
cle. This is in contrast to all existing four-lamp 
systems, which use both lamps to produce the up- 
per beam. It was also proposed that the manufac- 
turer have the option of wiring a vehicle in such a 
way that the lower beam lamps would operate dur- 
ing upper beam operation. These two features of 
the Type F system led to a proposed set of photo- 
metric criteria for the UF lamp that are different 
than the upper beam criteria for other four-lamp 
systems. The CHP noted that this change would 
provide a "worthwhile" increase in required lamp 
output, since it was above the lowest-performing, 
current production designs. Based on the response 
to the proposed upper beam photometric values, 
and since they provide a level of safety equivalent 
to that already provided by Standard 108, NHTSA 
is amending Standard No. 108 to incorporate these 
values. 

Lower Beam Performance 

At present, the lower beam lamp in a four-lamp 
system provides some of the upper beam light— it 
has a second filament to do this. Also, the lens 



prescription of the current lower beam lamp is 
designed for this dual function. In the system re- 
quested by GM, the lower beam lamp produces 
only lower beam light and thus its lens prescrip- 
tion can be optimized for the low beam function. 
GM claimed that the benefit of using this design 
approach would be that the lower beam lamp could 
be designed for optimum performance and increas- 
ed seeing light. 

Except for 1 of 13 test point values, GM's final 
recommended lower beam photometries were 
within the currently required test point value 
ranges. The one exception was an increase to a 
maximum value at a test point (V2D-IV2L to L) 
that was located near the glare zone. GM wanted 
to increase this value from 2,500 cd to 3,000 cd to 
reduce the sensitivity of the lamp to horizontal 
misaim and to permit more uniform left lane 
lighting. In conjunction with this increase, GM 
recommended increases in the minimum values at 
the seeing light test point and at spread light 
points. 

The California Highway Patrol (CHP) believed 
the proposed changes would be the first concrete 
step taken to improve the Federal lower beam re- 
quirement, citing the increase in minimum test 
point values by 20% to 33% in four areas of the 
lower beam with no further increase in maximum 
glare values above the horizontal. Ford recom- 
mended that the Type F system should be approv- 
ed but disagreed with all new proposed photo- 
metric values and with NHTSA's tentative posi- 
tion that the proposed values represented an im- 
provement in lighting. Ford pointed out that its 
CHESS computer headlamp evaluation model was 
gaining wide respect as an appropriate and 
objective tool for testing lighting performance, 
and commented that the proposed lower beam 
lamp "did not show any significant improvement in 
overall headlamp performance" when it was 
evaluated by the CHESS model. 

Sylvania stated that the proposal offered im- 
provements in photometries, noting "it is desirable 
to improve the performance of headlamp systems 
whenever they are considered. It should be the 
policy of NHTSA and the lighting industry to in- 
sure that any item or device that is considered, 
both now and in the future, be equivalent or better 
than existing lighting systems." Sylvania believed 
the increased spread light requirements of the pro- 
posed lamp system were justified and it urged 
adoption of these requirements. 



PART 571; S108-PRE 174 



General Electric (GE) endorsed the improved 
photometries but also desired an increase in the 
10U-90U glare value from 125 cd maximum to 175 
cd maximum. The purpose for this glare increase 
would be to allow for random spots of higher inten- 
sity light that can occur from stray reflections of 
light inherent in halogen bulbs. NHTSA believes 
this increase is not the best solution because lamp 
designers would then be designing for a higher 
level of 175 cd, and increase the potential for un- 
safe veiling glare that would result during incle- 
ment weather. 

AMC fully supported the photometric changes 
sought by GM and proposed in the NPRM. GM 
noted that it designed the proposed system for its 
customers, but felt that no justification had been 
shown that this level of performance should be re- 
quired of all new headlamp systems. 

The one suggested increase in a maximum test 
point value (VzD-lVzL to L) was initially of some 
concern to NHTSA because that test point location 
is close to the glare zone. Increases in this test 
point value could result in higher glare intensity 
levels if the headlamps were aimed too high, but it 
would also permit more uniform lighting ahead of 
the vehicle. A recent NHTSA study' recognized 
this potential problem, but the study also found that 
drivers can accept higher glare levels without dis- 
comfort. A 100% increase in this test point value 
was thought to be reasonable based on the study 
data, while GM recommended only a 20% increase. 

The CHP and Ford also expressed some concern 
about increasing this test point value. The CHP 
noted that the 20% increase should allow better 
seeing ability, but it does not alleviate the com- 
plaints of compact-car drivers about the excessive 
brightness of high-mounted headlamps on taller 
four-wheel-drive pickups. Ford noted that photo- 
metric values are more sensitive to the vertical 
aim of the headlamp and an increase in the general 
intensity of a beam in these areas makes the lamp 
more susceptible to causing glare. The MVMA 
stated that there was no reason to expect this 
headlamp system to exhibit any new performance 
characteristic that would cause a level of glare 
significantly different from the glare produced by 



"Improved Low Beam Photometries," Olson and Sivak, Universi- 
ty of Michigan Transportation Research Institute; Interim Report 
No. UM-HSRI-81-4, February, 1981: Final Report No. UMTRI-83-9, 
March, 1983. 



currently permitted headlamps. However, the 
MVMA believed that more research was needed to 
address the subject of discomfort glare from 
headlamps. GE supported this value, and no other 
commenters directly addressed this subject. 

After considering these comments, NHTSA has 
concluded that the 20% increase in this test point 
value is well within the 100% increase thought to 
be reasonable by the most current research on the 
subject, and that adopting this value should not 
pose any safety problem. 

In its petition, GM had also added a new test 
point value (ID-V) that it claimed was necessary to 
prevent the lower beam from being aimed too far 
to the right. GE, the only commenter on this sub- 
ject, believed this new test point was design- 
restrictive and redundant, noting that the test 
point V2D-IV2R controls excessive aim to the 
right. NHTSA believes that beam patterns which 
meet this specification at ID-V have the potential 
for placing more light down the road, as the peti- 
tioner claimed. However, NHTSA accepts the GE 
position that the specification for this point may be 
redunant with the specification at VzD-lVzL to R. 
Therefore, this specification is not adopted as part 
of Figure 15. 

In summary, on the basis of the proposal and the 
comments, NHTSA continues to believe that the 
level of safety inherent in the proposed photo- 
metric test points is equivalent to the level provid- 
ed by existing lamp systems and that the proposed 
photometries are appropriate for lamp systems of 
this design. Additionally, NHTSA will apply these 
photometries to future lamp systems of similar 
design, where one optical system is dedicated to 
lower beam use and another optical system is 
dedicated to upper beam use. Such systems would 
include those with either four lamps or four light 
sources. 

The proposed photometric values seemed to 
represent an improvement in lower beam photo- 
metrics because more light would be provided in 
roadway locations where pedestrians and other ob- 
jects must be seen and avoided. Therefore the 
NPRM asked whether these photometries should 
be required for all headlamp systems. All com- 
menters who addressed this question felt that it 
was inappropriate at that time to apply these 
photometric criteria to all existing systems. In the 
absence of significant, quantitative evidence on 
the safety effects of these values, the agency is not 
adopting their use on all headlamp systems. 



PART 571; S108-PRE 175 



Additionally, NHTSA agrees with the sugges- 
tion from Ford and MVMA that some type of ob- 
jective evaluation tool is needed for identifying 
safety improvements in roadway illumination per- 
formance. A program for development of such a 
tool will be initiated in the near future. This pro- 
gram will build on the extensive research base 
that already exists as well as the computer tech- 
niques that have been developed by Ford, MVMA 
and others. 

Luminance 

According to GM, the proposed lamp has a lens 
light-emitting area of 9,271 square mm, and the 
current small rectangular headlamp has a lens 
light-emitting area of 14,014. Therefore, the pro- 
posed lamp is about 1/3 smaller in lens light- 
emitting area than the current small rectangular 
headlamp. Since both of these lamps have similar 
glare point intensity limits, the proposed lamp 
would have a higher luminance value. (Luminance 
is the ratio of light intensity to the light-emitting 
area.) Generally, there is a potential for an in- 
crease in glare when a lamp of given intensity is 
reduced in lens area and, therefore, is increased in 
luminance. To date, there is no known recognized 
method to objectively compare the influence of 
headlamp luminance values to the potential for 
discomforting glare. GM stated that its subjective 
tests did not indicate a glare problem, and NHTSA 
tentatively accepted this finding. However, com- 
ment on this issue was requested in the NPRM. 

Four commenters did not directly address this 
issue (Lucas, VW, GE, and AMC); Chrysler stated 
that it did not have sufficient experience with the 
proposed system to make any recommendations; 
five commenters (GM, Ford, Sylvania, MVMA, and 
the CHP) believed there would be no safety prob- 
lem. GM noted that test results to date indicate 
"substantially less" light-intensity levels in the 
glare zone for the proposed headlamps as com- 
pared to current large rectangular headlamps (142 
mm X 200 mm). As a result, GM believed these 
lower light-intensity levels "should more than 
make up for any brightness differences which may 
be attributed to size differences." GM also noted 
that for a comparable amount of seeing light, the 
proposed system will have a substantially lower in- 
tensity of glare light than any other headlamp size. 
Subjectively, GM believes that increased seeing 
light is the more important factor, and does not 
find the brightness to be objectionable. 



Ford noted that the brightness distribution over 
the lens area of headlamps generally is not 
uniform — the size, shape and brightness gradients 
all are contributing factors. Ford surmised that 
although the proposed lamp is smaller, it will not 
exhibit any difference in glare from other head- 
lamps of slightly greater size. Sylvania believed 
the design geometry of the lamp, along with the 
photometric requirements, would prevent the 
luminance factor from being a problem. The CHP 
and MVMA did not expect any discomfort glare ef- 
fects. Since there was no objection from com- 
menters and no additional information is available, 
NHTSA has concluded that luminance will likely 
not be a problem with the Type F headlamp 
system. 

Improved Aiming Features 

Current sealed-beam headlamps are positioned 
or seated in their mountings through the use of 
lugs located on the back of the reflector, which 
form a seating plane, but they are aimed through 
the use of aiming pads located on the lens face, 
which form an aiming plane. GM claimed that the 
proposed new headlamp would have more accurate 
aiming features than current sealed-beam head- 
lamps because it would be designed to have the 
seating plane and the aiming plane coincide. Pads 
on the front of the lens-to-reflector flange would be 
used as a common plane to seat the lamp in its 
mounting and to aim the lamp. 

A NHTSA evaluation of the dimensional toler- 
ances that are allowed for current headlamp units 
indicated that the skew error in angular align- 
ment between the seating and aiming planes can 
be as large as ± 2.9°. Since the seating plane and 
aiming plane would be constructed to coincide in 
the proposed GM lamp system, this skew error 
would be eliminated. As a result, if a properly aim- 
ed headlamp is replaced, the replacement head- 
lamp should remain properly aimed. Since replace- 
ment of headlamps without re-aiming has become a 
frequent practice, this new design should result in 
greater numbers of properly aimed replacement 
headlamps. The agency believes that proper aim 
reduces glare to oncoming drivers and improves 
seeing distance for both drivers. Eliminating the 
skew error would also reduce the amount of 
mechanical aim adjustment that must be provided 
to aim the lamp. Therefore, NHTSA proposed to 
reduce the minimum amount of required horizon- 
tal aim adjustment from ± 4° to ± 2V2°. 



PART 571; S108-PRE 176 



And, since this approach has the potential to im- 
prove aim retention and reduce mechanical aim ad- 
justment requirements on future headlamps, 
NHTSA asked whether common seating/aiming 
planes should be required on future headlamps. 

Four commenters did not directly address this 
proposed common seating/aiming plane require- 
ment (Lucas, Ford, GE, and AMC). Chrysler stated 
that it did not have any experience with the pro- 
posed headlamp system and could not make any 
recommendations, but it believed that the inclu- 
sion of design-oriented requirements inhibits 
design freedom and innovation. Five commenters 
(GM, Sylvania, VW, MVMA, and the CHP) general- 
ly agreed that the design seemed achievable and 
had merit. While GM and MVMA agreed that the 
requirements seemed appropriate for the Type F 
lamp system, they did not support such a require- 
ment for other headlamp systems, noting this re- 
quirement would not necessarily be practical for 
replaceable bulb headlamps and could stifle future 
innovation. 

The CHP argued this aspect should be clearly 
stated in the standard as a direct requirement 
rather than its intent being inferred by the propos- 
ed figures. NHTSA believes that the proposed rule 
is quite specific about requiring the lamps to be 
designed to meet the requirements of the new pro- 
posed figures and, therefore, does not believe fur- 
ther statements are necessary. Since all comments 
favored applying this requirement to only the pro- 
posed lamp system, and not to all future headlamp 
systems, NHTSA has adopted this aspect of the 
proposal for only the Type F system and will not 
consider it for all future headlamp systems. 

Regarding the proposed reduction in horizontal 
aim adjustment, three commenters did not direct- 
ly address this issue (Lucas, GE, and AMC), while 
six commenters (GM, Sylvania, Chrysler, VW, 
Ford, and the MVMA) supported the reduction and 
the CHP opposed it. Sylvania believed that the 
current horizontal and vertical aim adjustments of 
± 4° were more than was necessary for any head- 
lamp system. Chrysler submitted that current 
horizontal aim adjustment requirements were ex- 
cessive and could be reduced for all headlamp 
systems. The CHP agreed that the common aim- 
ing/seating plane would eliminate the described 
skew error, but it also found that during its ran- 
dom inspection of vehicles, a number of headlamps 
were misaimed "considerably beyond" the 1.9° 
range of aim measuring equipment. Therefore, 



reducing the minimum adjustment range to ± 2.5° 
did not seem to leave much room for all the possi- 
ble sources of misaim due to lamp and mounting 
hardware tolerances. 

The report "Analysis of Sources of Error in 
Headlamp Aim"-' indicates that when aim- 
ing/seating plane skew errors are eliminated, the 
range needed to compensate for other sources of 
error is about ± 0.115° when mechanically aiming 
and about ± 0.988° when optically aiming. An ad- 
justment range of ± 2.5° appears adequate to com- 
pensate for errors. The standard is therefore 
amended to reduce horizontal aim adjustment for 
headlamps with a common aiming/seating plane. 

GM had petitioned for, and NHTSA subsequent- 
ly proposed, a method to simultaneously aim both 
the lower and upper beam lamps. Both lamps 
would be mounted in a common housing and would 
have a common aim adjustment. Comments from 
the CHP and GE noted that applying requirements 
to the entire headlamp assembly was not normal 
industry practice. The CHP also pointed out that 
on the requirements for aim tolerances, it is 
necessary to specify what portion of the ± 1/4° 
realm would be applied to the lamps and what por- 
tion would be applied to the mounting assembly. 
CHP's suggestion about the further need for speci- 
fying such tolerances may have merit, but such 
changes cannot be accomplished unless the public 
is allowed to comment. Therefore, this proposal for 
simultaneous aim will be reconsidered and ad- 
dressed in the separate notice of proposed 
rulemaking. 

Headlamp Aimer Adapter 

The current standard requires that all head- 
lamps must be mechanically aimable. In order to 
meet these requirements, GM proposed an adapter 
for current mechanical aiming equipment that 
seemed to offer an acceptable means of mechanical 
aim. To provide sufficient lead time for inspection 
stations and repair facilities to obtain the 
adapters, NHTSA proposed that these adapters be 
provided with each vehicle that is manufactured 
with the proposed headlamps up to July 1, 1986. 

No comments were received about the type of 
adapter proposed, and only GM and AMC com- 
mented on the requirement to equip vehicles with 



^"Analysis of Sources of Error in Headlamp Aim," Olson and 
Mortimer, University of Michigan Transportation Research In- 
stitute, March 1974. 



PART 571; S108-PRE 177 



these adapters. Both GM and AMC project that 
use of the proposed lamps will be "very substan- 
tial," with GM tentatively planning to market over 
a half-million vehicles with the proposed headlamp 
system prior to July 1, 1986. GM estimated it 
would be issuing almost 10 times the number of 
adapters that are needed in the field if it must 
meet the proposed requirement. Therefore, as an 
alternative to meeting this requirement, GM pro- 
posed to assure that an ample supply of adapters 
would be available for sale in more than adequate 
time to meet any field needs. GM noted that its 
good faith has already been demonstrated, since it 
has already purchased the adapter tooling and it 
will not realize any profit. AMC believes that 
there will be sufficient motivation to supply these 
adapters, and with the normal industry pre-model 
process and practice of keeping up with new 
technology, there should be no problem in incor- 
porating the use of these adapters. Therefore, both 
GM and AMC recommended against adoption of 
this aspect of the proposal. NHTSA has concurred 
in those comments. 

Three principal aspects of the April proposal 
have been determined to merit further considera- 
tion. The first of these was the optional use of the 
lower beam during the use of the upper beam. The 
second was the co-aimability of the upper and 
lower beam Type F lamps. The last is the optional 
use of the auxiliary filament. The agency has 
decided to re-propose these features of a Type F 
system in a separate notice. That notice will pro- 
vide an analysis of the comments on these issues 
from the April 1984 NPRM as well as the reasons 
behind the new proposal. It is anticipated that the 
proposed changes to the rule being adopted today 
will have an effective date of July 1, 1985. 

NHTSA has considered this rule and has deter- 
mined that it is not major within the meaning of 
Executive Order 12291 "Federal Regulation" or 
significant under Department of Transportation 
regulatory policies and procedures, and that 
neither a regulatory impact analysis nor a full 
regulatory evaluation is required. However, a 
regulatory evaluation has been prepared and 
placed in the public docket. Since use of Type F 
headlamps is optional, the rule will impose no addi- 
tional requirements but will permit manufacturers 
greater flexibility in the use of headlighting 
systems. 

NHTSA has analyzed this rule for the purposes 
of the National Environmental Policy Act. The 



rule may have a small positive effect on the human 
environment, since the weight and quantity of 
materials used in the manufacture of headlamps 
will be reduced. 

The agency has also considered the impacts of 
this rule in relation to the Regulatory Flexibility 
Act. I certify that this rule would not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities. Accordingly, no 
regulatory flexibility analysis has been prepared. 
Manufacturers of motor vehicles and headlamps, 
those affected by the rule, are generally not small 
businesses within the meaning of the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act. Finally, small organizations and 
governmental jurisdictions will not be significant- 
ly affected, since the price of new vehicles, 
headlamps, and aimer adjusters will be minimally 
impacted. 

In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR 
571.108, Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, 
Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equip- 
ment, is amended as follows: 

1. Paragraph S4.1.1.34 is revised by adding the 
following at the end of the chart: 



System 



Headlamp Type 



Number of 
Headlamps 



1 



Type UF 

and 

Type LF 1 



2. New sections S4.1.1.43, S4.1.1.44, and 
S4.1.1.45 are added to read: 

4> * t> * * 

S4.1.1.43 Instead of being equipped with a head- 
lighting system specified in Table I or Table III, a 
passenger car, multipurpose passenger vehicle, 
truck or bus manufactured on or after July 1, 1985, 
may be equipped with a headlighting system of 
two Type UF and two Type LF headlamps design- 
ed to conform to: 

(a) The dimensions specified in Figures 11, 12, 
13, and 14. 

(b) The photometric requirements of Figure 15. 

(c) The requirements of SAE Standard J579c 
Sealed Beam Headlamp Units for Motor Vehicles, 
December 1978, with the following exceptions: 

(1) The definitions in sections 2.4 through 2.11 
do not apply. 



PART 571; S108-PRE 178 



(2) In Section 2.12, the definition of "Mechanical- 
ly Aimable Sealed Beam Unit" is: "A unit having 
three pads, defining a mechanical aiming plane, 
used to adjust and inspect the aim of the unit when 
installed on the vehicle." 

(3) In Section 2.13, the definition of "Aiming 
Plane" is: "A plane defined by the three aiming 
pads." 

(4) Section 3.4 does not apply. 

(5) Tables 1 and 2, and Figures 1 and 2 do not 
apply. 

(6) In Section 3.5.1 and 3.5.3, references to 
"Tables 1 and 2" and Figure 3 are replaced by 
"Figure 15." 

(7) Section 3.6 does not apply. 

(d) When tested in accordance with Section 3.5.2 
of SAE Standard J579c Sealed Beam Headlamp 
Units for Motor Vehicles, December 1978, the 
mounted assembly (either Type UF or Type LF 
headlamps, respective mounting ring, aiming ring, 
and aim adjustment mechanism) shall be designed 
to conform to meet the requirements of Figure 15 
for upper or lower beams respectively without 
realm when any conforming Type UF or LF head- 
lamp is tested and replaced by another conforming 
headlamp of similar type. 

(e) The requirements of SAE Standard J580, 
August 1979 Sealed Beam Headlamp Assembly, 
with the following exceptions: 

(1) Section 2.2 Mounting Ring reads: "the ad- 
justable ring upon which the sealed beam unit is 
mounted and which forces the sealed beam unit to 
seat against the aiming ring when assembled into a 
sealed beam headlamp assembly." 

(2) The definition "2.3 Aiming Ring" reads: "The 
clamping ring that retains the sealed beam unit 
against the mounting ring, and that provides an in- 
terface between the unit's aiming/seating pads and 
the headlamp aimer adapter (locating 

plate)." 

(3) In Section 3, the correct version of SAE J575 
is "SAE 575f (April 1975). 

(4) Section 4 does not apply. 

(5) Section 5.1 reads: "Headlamps shall be design- 
ed so that they may be inspected and aimed by 
mechanical aimers as specified in SAE J602 Oc- 
tober 1980, without the removal of any ornamental 
trim rings or other parts." 



(6) Section 6.1.1 reads: "When the headlamp 
assembly is tested in the laboratory, a minimum 
aiming adjustment of ± 2.5 deg. shall be provided 
in the horizontal plane and ± 4 deg. in the vertical 
plane." 

(7) Section 6.1.2 reads; ". . through an angle of 
± 2.5 deg. and ± 4 deg., respectively." 

(8) Section 6.3 is retitiled "Retaining Ring/Aim- 
ing Ring Tests." 

(9) In Section 6.3.2 add the flange thickness "92 
X 150 mm 0.340 in. 8.6 mm)" 

(10) Figures 2, 3, and 4 do not apply, and the 
reference to them in Section 6.5 is replaced by 
"Figure 16, Deflectometer, of Federal Motor Vehi- 
cle Safety Standard No. 108." 

54. 1.1.44 The lens of each headlamp designed to 
conform to paragraph S4.1.1.43 shall be marked 
with: 

(a) The designation "F" if it provides an upper 
beam, or "LF" if it provides a lower beam; and 

(b) The symbol "DOT" (either horizontally or 
vertically) which shall constitute a certification 
that the headlamp conforms to all applicable 
Federal motor vehicle safety standards. 

54.1.1.45 Each headlamp designed to conform to 
paragraph S4.1.1.43 shall also be designed to con- 
form to the following specifications: 



Type LF 



TypeUF 



Watts @ 12.8 V (design voltage 60 max 70 max. 

Average Life @ 14.0 V (rated voltage) 320 hr 150 hr. 

3. New Figures 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16 are 
added as follows: 



Issued on December 20, 1984. 



Diane K. Steed 
Administrator 

49 FR 50176 
December 27, 1984 



PART 571; S108-PRE 179-180 



""u < 


c 

< 


X^ 


>- 
1 . 




< 
< 

1 ; 










» 
J 
1 




1 

• 




TYPE LF 

RECTANGULAR 
SEALED BEAM 
HEADLAMP UNIT 






- 


1 

1 




</ 




- 


IP 




0^ 


/ 


THIS 
BE FR 
PADS 


LJ 

< 


T~l 






2 
5 


o 

fS! 

- D 

^ a> ^ 
2 r, S 


z 

o 
to 

o 


<i 

M <_, o o 
o 2 en n 

x' o o o o 

^5 • 

— oj o in (T) 

O O 00 CD CO ^ 

CD cr d c\j oj — 


o 

in ■ 

G «3 

Z r- •»r 


in in 

O i- G 2 

° ru o ° 
^ CO ^ IT iS 


(/) bJ 


f"^'^^^ 


z „ 


^ 


UJ o z 

2 _ o 


1 

i 


-i ^ 


,1 n 


_J UJ '^ 






1 


-I 


|?3 

a z Q 

U o ^ 


z o: 
cc z 

CO Ui UJ ^ 
t— U) 

1 


^S— 


f 


^ 


•^ CK UJ 


1 




—I 

^ > 

o 

z 

X 

UJ 

o 
z 

Q: 

o 
u 

I 


_l Q. (_) 


.-.—^ 


z 


o o 

■ o o 

z ■ • 

5 ■ • 

^ ^ ^ 


z 

Oj 

o 


< 

. SS20 

X oooo 

<I . . . 

^ ^ 

eofi^os;?; 

CO < O ~ 2 G 


O 
OJ • 

^.< 
. 2 

in r- 
■0- en p 
in OJ _ 


OJ ?^ 
G L. o z 

. • • 5 

n 

- io "^ ^ 


_J o o 






Z 
< 

UJ 
CO 

Q 

Z 
■a 

iz 
1 "^ 

< CL 

r - 

Ul 

_/ 

u 
o 

a 

5 UJ 

z 

UJ 

u> 

t— 

UJ 

o 


^ 






— I. 

z c^; 

1 1 


3 
D 

J 






i 


N 




vi 


i , 


00 






z \ 

< ^ 

-I 

a 


r^ 


^ 


=1 




-" — -f-t 






UJ 

t— 

UJ 


or to •- 


3 


< 

> S >c >- t-sj <3 


CD Ul a 

< <J <3 


UJ u CD I -) 


2 Q. 




1 


1~ 

; u) 
< 




\ 




^ ^ 


< 
u 
o 

_J 


1 

CD 






u 

< 

1 




tt 
















o 

z 

a 

n 

u 




cr' 
— U) — 


5 

2 


oooo 

OjOOjO 


o 

o 
o 

o 

o 
o 

C£ 


O ° O O O O 

O g o " " " 

in 2 in o o o 
o ° o o 

O § G ° ° ° 

o >2 G G m in 
CD — CO Oj m in 


G— G — 

1 ^ 


„■ X 

lis 

,- o « 

r CD -- 


3: 


L 


1 
1 


< 

u 


r 


rt^^^^^ 


i \ 




z 
< 
5 


I 




Cu-t — 1 

_U J 1 

~i— -i — 1 


\ 




^ >- 


--4 


A". 




/ ^ 




2 -" 

< UJ 

Ul ^ p. 

Q. 3 Z 

< £ « 


...y 




X 

o 

z 


oooo 
oooo 

. . . . 
(D ID 

in CO 


1 
n 

o 

CO 

Ul 


r- ;?, C: o o o 
i£i o a> r- ^^ ^^ 

GO ^ — 

CO n r^ r: . . 

C\J CO C\J . CVJ OJ 


ODO ODO 
G-^ G'T 
GO GO 

CD OJ 

00 in 

CD OJ 

in n 


1 ^^ 

CO 22 m 
■^ n rvj 


X D 

O O I 


-> 


u. 


■• ' 




1- a I/) 
a. 

U D. CO 

_i < < 


r 

o 


n 










a 




- 




1— 
UJ 


< CD 


C3 UJ U CO X ~> 


^ —> 


5 Z D. 















PART 571; S108-PRE 181 




s 






o 




h- 


I 




•— t 


in 






OT 






<I 






t— 




<: 


0. 




_j 


LJ 




o 


(_) 


Ll. 


c: 


X 


= 


LJ 


LJ 


UJ 


:e 


Ll. 


o. 


r 


-J 


>- 


«i: 


2 


t— 


LJ 


LJ — 




CO 


Q. □ 


1 




>- 




a 


1- I 


C\J 


LlJ 


C_) 


r— 


1 


OT Z 




<r 


< — 


• 


LJ 




o 


LTI 


LJ . 






3 ^ 

5 >'. 


li. 


a: 




<. 


en _ 

LJ 

o 

2 




=> 
ts 
z 
«t 
t- 
c_> 

UJ 

cr 



PART 571; S108-PRE 182 









D- 




i: 


U- 


«£ 


=> 


_i 


t/5 


o 


>- O 


< 


UJ z 


LU 


i<: <c 


a: 


U- U- 


SL.- 


O _J 


«r 




LU l/l 


» U' 


cs u; 


UJ c 


z 


1— i >- 


Q ►-. 


s» •— 


LU O. 




—1 


1— or 


•I tS 


z o 


LiJ Z 


c u. 


oo ^ 


a: 


t— 


u- tn 


q: z 


Of 


<: =5 


1 O 


_J o 


t— 


=) s: 


ro et 


tr 


1— t_) 


z »— 


O 


*t ^ 


• _J 


(— 2 


IT 


O =) 


^- OL. 


UJ 


U. O 


o: 



5 
5 



oooo 
roGno 

exDcbo 









o 

^ ° o o 

o CO _; _; 



o 
r- o " 
— — d 



o 

CD 



o 

CO 



V :: ° 

CD r- ob £ 



rj o 



o 

CO 



Oooo 



^ — 



10 

oj <^ 2 
o 2 o 



TT ■* r— 



— ""^ tc 
ro ^ • 

. •>» IT) 



O (D 

ro r- c\j ff^ 

^ r,- " (^ 



^^ 



cu 

CO 



L. (J I ~) i^ _l 2 



T 



PART 571; S108-PRE 183 



•a 



a 
o 




o 

z 

<i 



o 



Z cr: 

^ <: 
a: _J 
=) 
e. tr 1/1 
z z t— 

« <£ .-I 

f- I— z 

«t O =) 
Lu LiJ 
U-l OL d- 

IS u. S 
Z ■=) _J 

^ o 
I. o <c 

■— I Z UJ 

«£ <c a: 
I u- s: 

_J cE 

^ LU 

I— LU CO 

Q. 

• >- 












o 


O 




o o 






o 


•? 


n CD 


X 


d 
in 


o 

z 


5 










o" 2 5 




G^ 




— 00 in 


o 
o 

f— 


ru 
o 


o o 
o •^ 




O) LD 










O O 






n 




o o 


V 


o en 


T 


z 


<I 


ru ro 2-' 


z 


_v^ 


5 


.. 


- 2 




OJCO -, 


o 


r— 


o 



r— OJ f^ « ^ ~ 

• • cu o) '^ ^ ro 
in n ^ . OJ CD — 



«J OD (_) Q UJ L^ O 



PART 571; S108-PRE 184 



at 

D 

< 
> 

Z 

5 

a. 

~ UJ 



UJ 

O 

»- 

o 



2 

< 



o 



•SE 



w C 





«- w 




■ ' 8 

* 



O 



o ** *• o 

<« -I Ci Ci « 

3 r^ •- •- »- 

S •" ^ *• D 

3 T 3 Q ^5 

O D CJ 



(N ^ 



2 CI « 

5 S J? § 

C^ Ci O T 



fig 

-o ^ 

e '^ 

6 S^ s 

Q «- * 

TOO 

•- p*< * 



. c 

"Si 






s 




< 

UJ 

es 


e 


ee 


o 


iM 


^^ 


a. 




CL 


«» 


3 


K-O 




o 
o 



sis 

o g 5 S 



V- l/> 



I- o - 

^ ^ rn ^ 



o o o o 

o o o o 

o o^ un o^ 

1/1 <N «N *-* 



c 

• I 

(N ^ 



<N 

^ -J ^ ^ 

'^ \A 9 ^ 

•a T3 "O c 

C C C 19 

fZ ^ f9 t^ 

ee ee ee (N 

^^ ^ w ^ 

X X X X 



c 



e 

(9 



Q O O O 

C5 C* C:! C* > 

r T T T Q 

•• ^ <N IN * 



O 

w 



•a 

o 

a 



c - 

4» .2 






O C 

3 Q- 



+1 ° 

... 13 

O ^ 

1. ^ 

c :2 

5 £ 



PART 571; S108-PRE 185 



M? 



re 



cr 



X 




CO 










UJ 




O 








cv 


LJ 










C 




LJ 








o 


1 — 








2 




a 










Q 


CL 








o 


U) 


LJ 


O 

o 


2 


< 




I o 


:^ 


> 


^ 




w 


o 


UJ 


LU 


« 


5 
2 




*" O 


< 


2 


z 


u< 


< 
cr 


< 


— 1 


*3 

to 


o 




I I 


Q 
<r 


O 
lO 


a 


< 


CD 

5 




O 

z 




UJ 

>- 


< 

LJ 




15 


M 






' 


a 




Q: 




u> 








X 




z 
o 


s 


< 


> 


a 




T 




on 
« 


2 




V 


LU 




-J 


1 


a 


O 


LU 




r> 








7- 






















r 








CJ 




















ri 








< 




ir 






I.LI 


5 


LJ 


• 




• 




• 




• 






(T> 


o 


2 



















PART 571; S108-PRE 186 



PREAMBLE TO AN AMENDMENT TO 
FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 108 

Lamps, Reflective Devices and 
Associated Equipment; Correction 

[Docltet No. 83-12; Notice 3] 



ACTION: Final rule; correction. 

SUMMARY: This notice corrects an error in the 
amendment published on November 26, 1984 (49 
FR 46386) relating to lamps, reflective devices and 
associated equipment. The error appears in the 
amendment to Tables II and IV. It is therefore 
necessary to correct the error. The maximum 
mounting height for headlamps was omitted. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the final 
rule on harmonization amendments published on 
November 26. 1984 (49 FR 46386), in amending 
Tables II and IV to reflect the revised minimum 
mounting height for headlamps, the maximum 
height was inadvertently omitted and must now be 
reinstated. That height is 54 inches. 



PART 571— FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE 
SAFETY STANDARDS 

§571.08 [Amended] 

On page 46391. in Tables II and IV of 49 CFR 
571.108, Column 4 of each is amended as follows: 

Heigfii aoove road sudace measured from center ol item on vehicle at euro weight 

Column 4 
Not less than 22 inches (55.9 cm) nor more than 54 inches (137.2 cm) 

Issued on January 17, 1985. 

Barry Felrice 
Associate Administrator 
for Rulemaking 

50 FR 3911 
January 29, 1985 



PART 571; S108-PRE 187-188 



PREAMBLE TO AN AMENDMENT TO 
FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 108 



Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment 



[Docket No. 81-11; Notice 13] 



ACTION: Final rule. 



SUIWMARY: This notice amends Safety Standard 
No. 108 to allow motor vehicles to be equipped 
with replaceable bulb headlamp systems con- 
sisting of either four lamps with single standardiz- 
ed replaceable light sources, or two lamps each 
with two such light sources. Currently Standard 
No. 108 permits replaceable bulb systems only if 
they are comprised of two lamps with single stan- 
dardized light sources. The amendment relieves 
the current replaceable bulb headlamp design 
restriction that allows only two-lamp single-light 
source systems. 

Notice of the proposed amendment was publish- 
ed on December 7, 1984, and an opportunity afford 
ed for comment (49 FR 47880). The proposal im- 
plemented the agency's gi'ant of a petition for 
rulemaking by General Motors Corporation. It also 
responded to a petition by Volkswagen of America 
previously denied. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 22, 1985, 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On June 2, 1983, NHTSA amended Motor Vehi 
cle Safety Standard No. 108. Lamps. Reflectivi' 
Devices, and Associated Equipment, to allow the 
use of a replaceable bulb headlamp system (48 FR 
24690). This system is comprised of two 
headlamps, each with a standardized replaceable 
light source containing both an upper and lower 
beam filament. 

Among the petitions for reconsideration of the 
rule was one from Volkswagen of America, asking 
that a four-lamp system be allowed, each with its 



own light source, which would be the standard 
dual-filament light source which the agency had 
adopted. NHTSA denied this petition (48 FR 
44815), commenting that rulemaking which would 
allow dual-filament light sources in a four-lamp 
configuration, or two dual-filament light sources in 
a single cavity, could not be entertained until cer- 
tain issues could be considered further. As the 
notice stated, these issues involved whether only 
two lamps should be illuminated on upper beam 
(in four-lamp systems all four are presently re- 
quired) and if so whether it is important that the 
front comers of the vehicle be otherwise indicated. 
Other issues concerned simultaneous actuation of 
light filaments in a headlamp system (this could 
produce excessive illumination) and uncertainties 
in the ability to insure correct simultaneous upper 
beam or lower beam aim if the bulb reflector 
systems were not separate upper and lower beam 
units. Subsequently, General Motors Corporation 
petitioned the agency for rulemaking to allow a 
two-lamp system with two standard dual-filament 
light sources in a single cavity. The agency 
granted that petition and published a notice of pro- 
posed rulemaking (NPRM) on December 7, 1984 
(49 FR 47880). As there was a similarity between 
the system that VW wished the agency to consider, 
and the one for which a petition was granted, the 
two systems proposed by the NPRM were simply 
those incorporating quadruple light sources. The 
agency reviewed the issues on which the previous 
denial was based, and presented them for discus- 
sion and comment in the NPRM. 

GM argued that the two-source system it has re- 
quested will allow it greater freedom in designing 
aerodynamic front ends than the present standard 
for replaceable bulb headlamps. Under the present 
standard, considering the possible out-of-focus 
relationship of the filament to the focal point of 



PART571;S108-PRE 189 



the reflector in a current replaceable bulb 
headlamp, the headlamp's vertical dimensions 
may be greater than desirable for aerodynamic 
purposes. By installing two light sources in the 
same headlamp, a smaller height is possible if the 
lower and upper beam filament are placed exactly 
on the focal point of their respective parabolas. 
Benefits attributable by GM to this intended 
system of headlamps of lesser height include possi- 
ble improvements in photometric performance and 
improved fuel economy through aerodynamic effi- 
ciency by lowering the edge of the hood. 

As the NPRM noted, another benefit could occur 
because only one filament would be in use in each 
dual-filament standardized replaceable light 
source in four-lamp systems and two-bulb systems. 
For example, should a lower beam filament burn 
out, the light source could be immediately inter- 
changed with the adjacent upper beam light 
source, whose lower beam filament would not have 
been utilized. After the exchange, the burned-out 
lower filament would become irrelevant as the up- 
per beam filament in that bulb would now be 
available for use. 

Both existing replaceable bulb photometries and 
photometries similar to those proposed for Type F 
sealed beam headlamps were proposed. Comments 
were solicited on each photometric option. 

GM would aim both bulbs in a single housing by 
a single adjustment, such as is currently used in 
the two-lamp round and larger rectangular 
systems. The GM system can utilize the same 
aimer adapters that are available for single 
replaceable bulb headlamps. 

Four-headlamp systems such as VW contem- 
plates offer distinctive design possibilities which 
are similar but not identical to those offered by 
systems with two bulbs per lamp. NHTSA pro- 
posed that four-lamp replaceable bulb headlamp 
systems consist of two lamps providing upper 
beam photometries, and two lamps providing 
lower beam photometries. The reflectors of these 
lamps would be designed to optimize the lower 
beam filament at the focal point of the lower beam 
lamp reflector and optimize the lens prescriptions 
for dedicated lower beam use. The upper beam 
lamp would be optimized in a similar manner. This 
type of system has been adopted for the new 
smaller four-lamp Type F sealed beam system (49 
FR 50176). The dedicated lens prescription of each 
lamp would be marked "U" for upper beam, or "L" 
for lower beam, as appropriate. In conjunction with 
the option proposing Type F lamp photometries, 



simultaneous use of the upper and lower beam 
would have been permitted as a manufacturer's 
option, and new glare limits would be added to the 
photometric requirements to help minimize poten- 
tial problems from excessive foreground light 
during simultaneous use. 

Because of the shorter life of filaments producing 
the upper beam, the agency also proposed that the 
lower beam photometries be met by lower beam 
filaments alone. For the same reason, it was pro- 
posed that simultaneous activation of both 
filaments in a single bulb be prohibited, since the 
bulb is not designed to be used in this manner, and 
bulb life would be shortened. As this proposed 
amendment affects the standardized replaceable 
bulb, it would be applicable to all lamp configura- 
tions using that bulb, including the two-lamp/one 
bulb per lamp system previously adopted. 

The agency also proposed revisions in the word- 
ing describing the aiming pad prescription re- 
quirements, clarifying them and relieving design 
restrictions. In effect, the agency would allow 
headlamps which may utilize mechanical aimer 
adapters with three adjustable legs. Accordingly, 
it was proposed that Figures 9-1 and 9-2 be deleted 
and appropriate changes made in the text. 

In addition to comments on the merits of the 
system proposed by the NPRM, the agency was 
also interested in comments relating to the rela- 
tionship between headlamp replacement costs and 
safety. Although GM has told NHTSA that the 
replacement cost of the glass lens/plastic reflector 
assembly for its new lamps would be in the 
neighborhood of $35, the actual cost could be 
several times higher for low volume designs. If 
that cost were not subsidized by the manufacturer, 
it could well be over $100 per lamp. Current retail 
cost for a replacement light source at Ford dealers 
is $16.75. Therefore, since the same light source 
(bulb) would be used in the GM system, the total 
replacement cost for the GM system, including 
lens/reflector assembly, two light sources, and 
labor, was estimated at about $80. It is estimated 
that about one complete headlamp will need to be 
replaced over the lifetime of the vehicle due to acci- 
dent or stone damage. Therefore, the agency 
solicited specific comments on the following issues: 
The relationship between cost and the probability 
of replacement of headlamp or bulb, the time lag 
that may exist between outage and replacement 
because of costs, and the extent to which cost con- 
siderations of nonmandated headlamps should 
enter into the agency's rulemaking considerations. 



PART 571; S108-PRE 190 



Ford Motor Company, whose petition was im- 
plemented by the amendment (48 FR 24690), had 
emphasized to the agency that one of the primary 
safety benefits of the new type of headlamp was 
that the light source could be replaced without 
removal of the headlamp, replacement of the lens- 
reflector portion of the headlamp, or the necessity 
to realm. With respect to the vehicle on which the 
system has been first installed, the Mark VII, bulb 
replacement is a simple matter of opening the 
hood, finding the rear of the headlamp, disengag- 
ing the old bulb by a twist of it in its mounting, 
and replacing it in a similar manner. The agency 
had been informed by General Motors that it in- 
tends to use replaceable bulb headlamps on a 
number of its 1986 model car lines, but that on two 
of these lines, the light source cannot be replaced 
without removing the headlamp itself Since this 
situation was not envisioned with replaceable bulb 
headlamps, the agency sought comments on this 
issue; that is, is there a relationship between vehi- 
cle safety and the ability to replace the bulb 
without tools. The agency desired a quantitative 
assessment, to the extent practicable. 

NHTSA also sought comment on the possibility 
of problems with aligning optical aiming equip- 
ment with lamps which have more than one bulb. 

In implementation of the considerations dis- 
cussed above, NHTSA proposed that the definition 
in paragraph S3 of "replaceable bulb headlamp" 
be amended to include headlamps with two stan- 
dardized replaceable light sources. It was noted 
that this light source is the only allowable light 
source for use in achieving the required upper or 
lower headlamp beam pattern. Under NHTSA 
interpretations, however, the standardized 
replaceable light source is not the only light source 
which may be included in a replaceable bulb 
headlamp unit. Other light sources, such as park- 
ing lamps, turn signal lamps, and fog lamps are 
not prohibited, as long as they do not interfere 
with the required headlighting function. 

The agency also sought to clarify the language in 
the standard regarding several of the testing re- 
quirements. The agency intended that headlamps 
utilizing the standardized replaceable bulb shall 
be able to meet the applicable performance re- 
quirements of Standard 108 with any standardized 
replaceable bulb intended for use in that lamp. 
Thus, for example, lamps must be able to pass the 
tests referenced in paragraph 84. 1.1. 36(b) not only 
with the bulb used as original equipment in that 
lamp but also with bulbs from other manufac- 



turers intended for use in that lamp. Since most 
replaceable bulbs will be sold in the aftermarket 
and not as original equipment (assuming the same 
distribution of sales as for sealed beams), this re- 
quirement is necessary to ensure the proper func- 
tioning of the headlamp so that it meets the need 
for motor vehicle safety. Specifications on the bulb 
itself, already promulgated by the agency, ensure 
that manufacturers have a reasonable design 
envelope within which to produce their lenses and 
reflectors. This clarification would result in an 
amendment to paragraph S4. 1.1. 36(b). 

NHTSA proposed that a headlamp with two light 
sources or a lamp in the system of four replaceable 
light sources meet the upper and lower beam 
photometric requirements of Table I of SAE J579c 
or new photometric requirements in proposed 
Figures 17 and 18, stating that a final decision 
would be made between these two choices. The 
agency proposed also that the aim of the upper 
beam of dual light source headlamps cannot be ad- 
justed separately from that of the lower beam light 
source. This proposal applies only to headlamp 
systems which are comprised of two headlamps 
and contain two bulbs in each headlamp. In these 
instances, there is only one set of aiming pads on 
each lamp, yet there are two bulb reflector sets in 
that lamp. If both upper and lower beam lamps are 
not aimed simultaneouosly— that is, with a single 
aiming adjustment— then consumers, or repair 
facilities would not be able to aim the lamp using 
the aiming pads but would be required to 
disassemble the lamp to adjust each reflector 
separately. This proposal, which was applicable 
only to the two-lamp, four-bulb system ensures 
that proper headlamp aiming, which the agency 
has traditionally considered necessary for motor 
vehicle safety, is achievable with current aiming 
equipment. It was further proposed that the lower 
beam be produced by a filament with an average 
life of 320 hours, the equivalent of the current 
lower beam light source filament. Paragraph 
S4. 1.1. 38(d) would be modified under the proposal 
to check for lens deflection in front of each bulb 
following the internal heat test. 

In adopting replaceable bulb headlamp systems, 
the agency, in S4.1.1.39 required, for the period 
July 1, 1983, to July 1, 1984, that each vehicle be 
equipped with a spare bulb as part of its original 
equipment. The agency noted that it anticipated 
that replaceable bulbs should be readily available 
through normal distribution channels at the end of 
the one year period. The agency is satisfied that 



PART 571; S108-PRE 191 



such bulbs are available and therefore proposed 
the deletion of S4.1.1.39, which has expired. 

Similarly, the agency adopted paragraph S8 to 
require, until July 1, 1984, that each vehicle also 
be furnished with adapters for mechanical aiming 
devices. The agency was convinced that sufficient 
adapters are available and that there should be no 
problems in inspection and aiming of motor 
vehicles with replaceable bulb headlamps which 
are not provided with these adapters. Therefore, 
NHTSA also proposed, pro forma, deletion of 
paragraph SB, which is no longer in effect. 

New paragraphs would be added to S4.5 to 
guarantee that only appropriate filaments will be 
energized. For systems which use four standard- 
ized replaceable light sources, it was proposed that 
Tables II and IV be be amended to state that the 
outermost light source (in a two-lamp system) or 
outermost lamp (in a foiu--lamp system) be used to 
produce the lower beam. This serves to mark the 
width of the vehicle during low beam use, as a cue 
to oncoming drivers. 

Paragraph S6.7, relating to temperature and in- 
ternal heat tests, would be modified for multiple 
bulb headlamps. Both upper and lower beam 
photometries would have to be met after each test. 
During the hot cycle, the highest combination of 
filament wattages capable of being used would be 
energized simultaneously (e.g., fog lamps, parking 
lamps, turn signal lamps). 

Paragraph S6.8, relating to the humidity test, 
would be amended to add temperature tolerances 
to the final phase of the test which have heretofore 
been inadvertently omitted. Currently the 
specification is 73 °F (23 °C). The agency proposed 
adding a tolerance of +7-0 °F ( +4-0 °C). In addition, 
the agency proposed reducing the excessively large 
tolerances on the humidity tolerance from +10% 
to +5%-0% and the temperature from +9°F to 
+9-0 °C (+4-0 °C). This is being done to increase 
test result repeatability and make the test require- 
ment more definitive. 

On Figure 4-1, one aiming pad was misidentified 
as a Class II pad: that would be corrected. In addi- 
tion, this Figure would be amended to illustrate 
the proposed definition of aiming reference plane. 
The title of Figure 4-2 would be modified to reflect 
its use as an example. Figure 7 would be changed 
to permit a wider test box since some headlamps 
would not fit into one of 16 inches width; 24 inches 
is proposed. 

Issues 

Comments were received on the notice from six 
motor vehicle manufacturers, one vehicle 



manufacturers trade organization, one test 
laboratory and the Department of California 
Highway Patrol; seven comments were also re- 
ceived from manufacturers of lighting equipment. 

The major issue presented by the proposal was 
whether the presently applicable photometries of 
SAE J579c met by the two standardized replace- 
able light sources in current two-lamp systems 
should also apply if four such sources were permit- 
ted, or whether the photometries recently adopted 
for the Type F four-lamp smaller sealed beam 
system would be preferred. Commenters almost 
unanimously opposed Type F photometries for the 
proposed type of headlighting system. The reason 
for the opposition is that the standardized 
replaceable light source uses transverse filaments 
while the filament in Type F lamps is axial. 
NHTSA concurs with the concerns expressed by 
commenters, and is adopting the existing 
photometries of SAE J579c for the two headlight- 
ing systems incorporating four standardized 
replaceable light sources. 

A second issue of concern to commenters was the 
proposed prohibition against simultaneous use of 
upper and lower beams in a four-lamp system, if 
the J579c photometries were allowed, as con- 
trasted with the lack of such a prohibition for 
systems with Type F photometries. The principal 
reason for the difference is that Type F 
photometries contemplate such use, and compen- 
sate for it, while SAE J579e does not. Therefore, on 
four -headlamp systems, simultaneous use of both 
upper and lower beam, or use of all four lamps for 
either upper or lower beam, is prohibited. Com- 
menters interpreted the prohibition as forbidding 
use of the "optical horn" or flash-to-pass feature 
found on many cars. NHTSA did not intend to pro- 
hibit this feature and the final rule specifies the 
exception allowing momentary signaling use. On 
two-lamp systems, simultaneous use of both light 
sources in a headlamp is permitted in either the 
upper or lower beam mode. However, the require- 
ment for both lamps of a two-lamp system to pro- 
duce light which satisfies either the upper beam 
specifications of J579e or the lower beam specifica- 
tions of J579c effectively prohibits other beam pat- 
terns, such as a mixture of upper and lower beam 
photometries, except for momentary signaling. 

Commenters were also concerned with proposed 
S4. 1.1. 36(b) which would have required com- 
pliance of each replaceable bulb headlamp "with 
any standardized replaceable light source intended 
for use in such headlamp." NHTSA's intent was 
that each headlamp should be designed to conform 



PART 571; S108-PRE 192 



with any randomly selected bulb meeting the 
specifications of Figure 3 and produced by any 
manufacturer. General Motors and others sug- 
gested that such headlamps be "designed to con- 
form" with any bulb, rather than "conform", and 
the final rule adopts this suggestion. 

The proposed environmental test requirements 
were the source of many comments. In order to in- 
sure a humidity environment of not less than 90%, 
the agency proposed a relative humidity of 
90-0+5%. Commenters instead interpreted this as 
a tolerance and suggested plus or minus 2 or 3 per- 
cent as more appropriate. NHTSA wishes to clarify 
that it intends a test environment "of not less than 
90%" relative humidity and has therefore adopted 
the words as quoted. Other comments received ad- 
vised NHTSA that the Notice failed to specify that 
the flasher, if tested simultaneously with the 
headlamp, should be flashing at its normal rate, 
and that a continuous flashing for one hour (the 
test period) was inappropriate. In recognition of 
these comments, the procedure adopted specifies 
that the flasher shall operate at 90 flashes a 
minute with a 75 ±2% "on time" (the rate intended 
to produce maximum "on time"). NHTSA believes 
that the one-hour duration of flashing, for the turn 
signal, is appropriate due to the use of these lamps 
as hazard warning signals. This value is based 
upon Figure 1, SAE Recommended Practice J590b 
Automotive Turn Signal Flashers, October 1965, 
already incorporated by reference in Standard No. 
108 as the standard for turn signals. 

With respect to lens markings, comments were 
received that the agency should not restrict mark- 
ings to the outside of the lens, but to allow them to 
be placed inside for facilitation, under some cir- 
cumstances, of the marking of the adjustable 
mechanical aimer setting. NHTSA concurs with 
this request, and the final rule so permits. Com- 
ments were also submitted as to the size of the lens 
lettering, NHTSA having proposed a minimum 
size of .25 inch. This size could interfere with the 
lens prescription of smaller headlamps. Motor 
Vehicle Manufacturers Association suggested .157 
inch (4mm), the minimum height specified for 
Vehicle Identification Numbers, and NHTSA has 
acceded to this request. A concurring amendment 
also deletes dimension G in Figure 4-4. 

There were a number of comments as well which 
raised other technical issues. Ford Motor Co. 
recommended deleting the language in proposed 
S4.1.1.36(aK2) regarding the secondary aiming 
plane, saying that it was unnecessary and created 
confusion. However, NHTSA has adopted the 



language as proposed, in order to cover such 
theoretically possible headlamps as those with 
split slope, or reverse slope lens. Ford also re- 
quested that the agency not adopt a requirement 
that the outermost lamp or bulb produce the lower 
beam, arguing that it would be applicable only to 
replaceable bulb headlamps. The agency dis- 
agrees; Standard No. 108 already in essence re- 
quires this for sealed beam headlamps by specify- 
ing that Type 2 headlamps, those providing the 
lower beam, be as far apart as practicable. 

Stanley Electric Co. Ltd. of Japan requested that 
there be no aim adjustment allowable, by con- 
sumers, between the high and low beam reflectors 
on headlamps with two light sources. NHTSA 
agrees, and this was the intent of the addition of 
paragraph (eKl) to S.4.1.1.36. Stanley also re- 
quested language be added to the standard to per- 
mit adjustments during the manufacturing pro- 
cess. Such adjustments are already permitted and 
the agency believes that additional regulatory 
language is unnecessary. Thus, the reflector and 
requirements of S.4.1.1.36(eXl) are adopted as pro- 
posed. 

Ford and Volkswagen objected to the wiring 
harness requirements proposed in paragraph 
S4.5.9. VW argued that strict adherence might be 
precluded by assembly considerations. Ford 
believed it unduly design restrictive. NHTSA has 
concluded that this paragraph should prevent 
situations such as a four-lamp system from being 
used when only two lamps were intended to be 
used, and that in the absence of such a require- 
ment there might be excessive glare and candela 
beyond the maximum allowed by the standard. 
Therefore the paragi-aph is being adopted as pro- 
posed. 

General Electric requested a clarification of 
paragraph S4.1.1.36(bK2) on how the aiming 
reference plane should be located in a photometer 
when measuring an inseparable two-lamp/two- 
bulb per lamp system, specifically whether the up- 
per beam is measured on or off the photometric 
axis, assuming that the lower beam is measured 
on axis. NHTSA expects the aiming pads to be 
located on the optical axis of the lower beam por- 
tion of the headlamp when only one light source is 
used for the lower beam. 

With respect to paragraph S6.7.2, Hella com- 
mented that the internal heat test for two-bulb 
headlamps was unnecessarily severe and costly 
because the test is repeated on both upper and 
lower beams in the same headlamp. The agency 
does not agree, because the power level is different 



PART 571; S108-PRE 193 



for each beam, as is the location of thermal input. 
Thus, a warp in the headlamp housing could 
develop from heat in either location. 

ETL Testing Laboratories raised the question as 
to compliance of a turn signal in a replaceable 
headlamp assembly. For example, if moisture is 
evidenced after the humidity test, does the turn 
signal fail to conform, even though it is required as 
a turn signal to meet only the water spray test in 
SAE J575, June 1970. NHTSA wishes to clarify 
that in this example, it is the headlamp assembly 
that is being tested for compliance, not the turn 
signal which, nevertheless, must conform to SAE 
J575 and other turn signal tests. 

ETL also commented that warpage after thermal 
testing might be more severe above the line of the 
headlamp's mechanical axis. Without judging the 
merits of that comment, NHTSA believes that 
there could be a problem if the mechanical axis is 
not in front of a bulb; this could occur if two bulbs 
are used in a headlamp and the axis is midway be- 
tween the bulbs. The agency is therefore revising 
some of the language in Subsections (A) and (B) of 
paragraph S4.1.1.36(dK6). The phrase "when 
measured perpendicular to the aiming plane at the 
point of intersection of the mechanical axis with 
the exterior surface of the lens" is revised by 
deleting the word "mechanical" and substituting 
"replaceable light source." 

The agency also asked for comments on several 
general issues related to replaceable bulb 
headlighting for which no specific requirements 
were proposed. NHTSA asked if there were a rela- 
tionship between vehicle safety and the ability to 
replace a bulb without tools. As noted, NHTSA 
was under the impression that replaceable bulb 
headlamps per se would be designed with easily 
replaceable light sources, which would encourage 
timely replacement in the event of burn-out. Those 
who commented agreed with NHTSA's intuitive 
conclusions that safety would be benefitted but 
provided no quantitative assessment. GM believed 
that such a feature was preferable and stated that 
it planned to eliminate the need for tools in future 
designs. Comments generally supported the need 
for ease of replacement, and NHTSA will defer any 
further action on this issue for the present time. 

NHTSA also expressed concern about replace- 
ment costs; the relationship between cost and the 
probability of replacement of the lamp or light 
source, the time lag that may exist between outage 
and replacement because of costs, and the extent to 
which cost consideration of non-mandated head- 



lamps should enter into the agency's rulemaking 
considerations. Comments were varied and in- 
conclusive, and the following are illustrative: a 
vehicle equipped with headlamps with a glass lens 
may have a higher lifetime cost than one equipped 
with headlamps with a polycarbonate lens because 
of the greater susceptibility to stone damage of 
glass lenses; the cost of light sources will probably 
fall when additional manufacturers enter the 
market; the time lag for any repair may be longer 
on an older car than on a newer one; no quan- 
tifiable relationship exists. If there were a common 
view it was that NHTSA's primary concern should 
be the performance of the headlamp itself, and the 
assurance that new types of systems should per- 
form, at a minimum, as well as those currently 
allowed. Having received no clear-cut answers to 
its questions, NHTSA will continue to monitor 
these issues and defers further action. 

NHTSA has considered this rule and has deter- 
mined that it is not major within the meaning of 
Executive Order 12291, "Federal Regulation," or 
significant under Department of Transportation 
regulatory policies and procedures. A regulatory 
evaluation has been prepared and placed in the 
public docket. Since use of the proposed headlamps 
is optional, the rule will not impose additional re- 
quirements or costs but will permit manufacturers 
greater flexibility in use of headlighting systems. 

NHTSA has analyzed this rule for the purposes 
of the National Environmental Policy Act. The 
rule may have a small positive effect on the human 
environment since the weight and quantity of 
materials used in the manufacture of headlamps 
would be reduced. 

The agency has also considered the impacts of 
this rule in relation to the Regulatory Flexibility 
Act. I certify that this rule will not have a signifi- 
cant economic impact on a substantial number of 
small entities. Accordingly, no initial regulatory 
flexibility analysis has been prepared. Manufac- 
turers of motor vehicle headlamps, those affected 
by this rule, are generally not small businesses 
within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility 
Act. Finally, small organizations and governmen- 
tal jurisdictions would not be significantly affected 
since the price of new vehicles, headlamps, and 
aimer adjusters will be minimally impacted. 

Because of the necessity of vehicle, headlamp, 
and bulb manufacturers to plan production and 
distribution on an orderly basis, it is found that an 
effective date earlier than 180 days after issuance 
of the final rule is in the public interest. 



PART 571; S108-PRE 194 



In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR 
571.108, Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, 
Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equip- 
ment, is amended as follows: 

1. A new definition "Aiming Reference Plane" is 
added to Section S3 Definitions to read as follows: 

"Aiming Reference Plane" means a plane which 
is perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the vehi- 
cle and tangent to the forwardmost aiming pad on 
the headlamp. 

2. The definition of "Replaceable Bulb 
Headlamp" in Section S3 Definitions is revised to 
read: 

"Replaceable bulb headlamp" means a 
headlamp comprising a bonded lens and reflector 
assembly and one or two standardized replaceable 
light sources. 

3. In paragraph S4. 1.1.36 the word "two" is 
deleted. 

4. In paragraph S4.1.1.36, the last sentence of 
paragraph (aX2) is removed and the following four 
sentences added: 

The lens of each replaceable bulb headlamp 
shall have three pads which meet the re- 
quirements of Figure 4. Except as provided in sub- 
paragraph (a)(3), a whole number, which 
represents the distance in tenths of an inch (i.e., 
0.3 inch = 3) from the aiming reference plane to 
the respective aiming pads which are not in con- 
tact with that plane, shall be inscribed adjacent to 
each respective aiming pad on the lens. The height 
of these numbers shall be not less than .157 inch 
(4mm). If there is interference between the plane 
and the area of the lens between the aiming pads, 
the whole number will represent the distance to a 
secondary plane. The secondary plane shall be 
located paralled to the aiming reference plane and 
as close to the lens as possible without causing in- 
terference. 

5. A new paragraph (aX3) is added to paragraph 
S4.1.1.36 to read: 

S4.1.1.36(aX3) If the most forward aiming pad is 
the lower inboard aiming pad, then the dimensions 
may be placed anywhere on the lens. The dimen- 
sion for the outboard aiming pad (Dimension F in 
Figure 4) shall be followed by the letter "H" and 
the dimension for the center aiming pad shall be 



followed by the letter "V". The dimensions shall be 
expressed in tenths of an inch. 

6. Paragraph (b) of paragraph S4. 1.1.36 is revised 
to read: 

(b) Each replaceable bulb headlamp shall be 
designed to conform to the following sections of the 
specified SAE Standards and Recommended Prac- 
tices with any standardized replaceable light 
source intended for use in such headlamp. 

7. Paragraph (bX2) of paragraph 84.1.1.36 is 
revised to read: 



(2) Section 3.1— Test Voltage, and Section 
3.5— Photometric Design Requirements, excluding 
Table 2, of SAE J579c "Sealed Beam Headlamp 
Units for Motor Vehicles" December 1978. The 
term "aiming plane" in paragraph 3.5 of SAE 
J579c shall mean "aiming reference plane." 

8. Paragraphs (A) and (B) of paragraph S4.1.1.36 
(dK6) are revised by removing the words 
"mechanical axis" and replacing them with "axis 
of each replaceable light source." 

9. A new paragraph (e) is added to S4. 1.1.36 to 
read: 

(eXl) There shall be no mechanism that allows 
adjustment of an individual standardized replace- 
able light source or adjustment of reflector aim on 
a headlamp with two standardized replaceable 
light sources. 

(2) Lower beam photometries shall be provided 
by a filament designed with an average life of 320 
hours. 

(3) The lower and upper beams of a headlamp 
system consisting of two lamps, each containing 
two standardized replaceable light sources, shall 
be provided as follows: 

(i) The lower beam shall be produced in one of the 
following ways: 

(A) By the outboard light source (or the upper one 
if arranged vertically), designed to conform to the 
lower beam requirements of Table I of SAE Stan- 
dard J579c Sealed Beam Headlamp Units for 
Motor Vehicles, Dec. 1978; or 



PART 571; S108-PRE 195 



(B) By both light sources, designed to conform to 
the lower beam requirements of Table I of SAE 
Standard J579c Sealed Beam Headlamp Units for 
Motor Vehicles, Dec. 1978. 

(ii) The upper beam shall be provided in one of 
the following ways: 

(A) By the inboard light source, (or the lower one 
if arranged vertically) designed to conform to the 
upper beam requirements of Table I of SAE Stan- 
dard J579c Sealed Beam Headlamp Units for 
Motor Vehicles, Dec. 1978; or 

(B) By both light sources, designed to conform to 
the upper beam requirements of Table I of SAE 
Standard J579c Sealed Beam Headlamp Units for 
Motor Vehicles, Dec. 1976. 

(iii) Each such headlamp manufactured as 
replacement motor vehicle equipment shall be 
designed to meet the requirements of paragraphs 
(eK3Xi) and (eK3Kii) of this section. 

(4) The lower and upper beams of a headlamp 
system consisting of four lamps, each containing a 
single standardized replaceable light source, shall 
be provided as follows: 



system consisting of four lamps, each containing a 
single standardized replaceable light source, shall 
not be activated simultaneously, except momen- 
tarily for temporary signaling use. 

54.5.9 The wiring harness or connector assembly 
of a replaceable bulb headlamp with two standar- 
dized bulbs or a four-lamp replaceable bulb 
headlamp system shall be designed so that the 
filaments not intended to be used with the lens 
prescription in front of such filament shall not be 
illuminated. 

54.5.10 The filaments in a dual-filament stan- 
dardized replaceable light source shall not be ac- 
tivated simultaneously except momentarily when 
switching between beams, or for temporary signal- 
ing use. 

11. Paragraph S4.1.1.37 is revised to read: 

S4. 1.1.37 Each lens-reflector unit manufactured 
as replacement equipment for a replaceable bulb 
headlamp system shall be designed to conform to 
the requirements of S4. 1.1. 36 when any standard- 
ized replaceable light source is inserted in it. 

12. Paragraph S4.1.1.39 and paragraph S8 are 
removed. 



(i) The lower beam shall be produced by the out- 
board lamp (or upper one if arranged vertically), 
designed to conform to the lower beam require- 
ments of Table I of SAE Standard J579c Sealed 
Beam Headlamp Units for Motor Vehicles, Dec. 
1978. The lens of each such headlamp shall be per- 
manently marked with the letter "L". 

(ii) The upper beam shall be produced by the in- 
board lamp (or lower one if arranged vertically), 
designed to conform to the upper beam require- 
ments of Table I of SAE Standard J579c Sealed 
Beam Headlamp Units for Motor Vehicles, Dec. 
1978. The lens of each such headlamp shall be per- 
manently marked with the letter "U". 

(iii) Each such headlamp manufactured as 
replacement motor vehicle equipment shall be 
designed to meet the requirements of paragraphs 

(eK4Ki) and (eK4Kii) of this section. 

10. New paragraphs S4.5.8, S4.5.9, and S4.5.10 
are added to read: 

S4.5.8 The lower and upper beams of a headlamp 



13. Paragraphs S6.7 and S6.8 are revised to read: 

S6.7 Temperature and internal heat tests— A 
headlamp with one replaceable standardized light 
source shall be tested according to S6.7.1(a) and 
S6.7.2(a). A headlamp with two standardized 
replaceable light sources shall be tested according 
to S6.7.1(b), S6.7,l(c), S6.7.2(b), and S6.7.2(c). 

S6.7.1 Temperature cycle. 

S6.7.1(a) Test for a headlamp with one standard- 
ized replaceable light source. A headlamp, mounted 
on a headlamp test fixture, shall be exposed to 10 
complete consecutive thermal cycles having the 
thermal cycle profile shown in Figure 6. During 
the hot cycle, the highest combination of filament 
wattages such as upper beam, fog lamp, parking 
lamp, and turn signal lamp, that are intended to 
be used simultaneously in the headlamp, shall be 
energized at design voltage commencing at point 
"A" of Figure 6 and deenergized at point "B". If a 
turn signal is provided, for test purposes it shall 
flash at 90 flashes per minute with a 75 ±2% cur- 
rent "on time." Separate or single test chambers 



PART 571; S108-PRE 196 



may be used to separate the temperature environ- 
ment described by the thermal cycle profile. All 
drain holes, breathing devices or other designed 
openings of the headlamp shall be in their normal 
operating positions. 

(b) Test for the lower beam of a headlamp with 
two standardized replaceable light sources. A head- 
lamp mounted on a headlamp test fixture, shall be 
exposed to 10 complete consecutive thermal cycles 
having the thermal cycle profile shown in Figure 
6. During the hot cycle, the highest combination of 
filament wattages such as fog lamp, parking lamp, 
and turn signal lamp, that are intended to be used 
simultaneously in the headlamp when operating 
on lower beam shall be energized at design voltage 
commencing at point "A" of Figure 6 and deener- 
gized at point "B". If a turn signal is provided, for 
test purposes it shall flash at 90 flashes per minute 
with a 75 ±2% current "on time." Separate or 
single test chambers may be used to separate the 
temperature environment described by the ther- 
mal cycle profile. All drain holes, breathing 
devices or other designed openings of the head- 
lamp shall be in their normal operating positions. 

(c) Test for the upper beam of a headlamp with two 
standardized replaceable light sources. A 
headlamp mounted on a headlamp test fixture 
shall be exposed to 10 complete consecutive ther- 
mal cycles having the thermal cycle profile shown 
in Figure 6. During the hot cycle, the highest com- 
bination of filament wattages such as fog lamps, 
parking lamps, and turn signal lamps, that are in- 
tended to be used simultaneously when the head- 
lamp is operating on upper beam shall at design 
voltage be energized simultaneously commencing 
at point "A" of Figure 6 and deenergized at point 
"B". If a turn signal is provided, for test purposes 
it shall flash at 90 flashes per minute with a 
75+2% current "on time." Separate or single test 
chambers may be used to generate the tempera- 
ture environment described by the thermal cycle 
profile. All drain holes, breathing devices or other 
designed openings of the headlamp shall be in 
their normal operating position. 

S6.7.2 Internal Heat Test. 

(a) Test for a headlamp with one standardized 
replaceable light source. 

(1) The lens surface of the headlamp that would 
normally be exposed to road dirt shall be sprayed 



uniformly with any appropriate mixture of dust 
and water or other material to reduce the 
photometric output at the test point H-V of the up- 
per beam (or at the 1/2 °D-l/2 °R test point for lower 
beam if the headlamp is an "L" headlamp in a 
four-lamp system) to 25+2% of the output original- 
ly measured in the upper beam photometric test 
under S4. 1.1. 36(b). Such reduction shall be deter- 
mined under the same conditions under which the 
original measurement was made. 

(2) After the determination has been made that 
the photometric output of the lamp has been 
reduced as specified in S6.7.2(aXl), the lamp and 
its mounting hardware shall be mounted in an en- 
vironmental test chamber in the manner similar 
to that indicated in Figure 7 "Dirt-Ambient Test 
Setup." The headlamp shall be soaked for one hour 
at a temperature of 95 +7-0 °F (35 +4-0 °C) and then 
the highest combination of filament wattages that 
are intended to be used simultaneously when 
operating on upper beam (or lower beam for an "L" 
lamp headlamp) shall be energized for one hour in 
a still air condition, allowing the temperature to 
rise from 95 °F( 35 X). 

(3) The lamp shall be returned to a room ambient 
temperature of 73+7-0 °F (23+4-0 °C) and relative 
humidity of 30 + 10%. The lens shall then be 
cleaned. Photometric output of the lamp shall be 
determined according to S6.1. 

(b) Test of the lower beam of a headlamp with two 
standardized replaceable light sources. 

(1) The lens surface of the headlamp that would 
normally be exposed to road dirt shall be sprayed 
uniformly with any appropriate mixture of dust 
and water or other material to reduce the 
photometric output at the test point 1/2 °D-1 1/2 °R 
or the lamp to 25+2% of the output originally 
measured in the lower beam photometric test 
under S4. 1.1.36(b). Such reduction shall be deter- 
mined under the same conditions under which the 
original measurement was made. 

(2) After the determination has been made that 
the photometric output of the lamp has been 
reduced as specified in S6.7.2(bXl), the lamp and 
its mounting hardware shall be mounted in an 
environmental test chamber in the manner 
similar to that indicated in Figure 7 "Dirt- 
Ambient Test Setup." The headlamp shall be soak- 
ed for one hour at a temperature of 95 + 7-0+F 



PART 571; S108-PRE 197 



(35+4-0°C) and then the highest combination of 
filament wattages that are intended to be used 
simultaneously when operating on lower beam 
shall be energized simultaneously for one hour in a 
still air condition, allowing the temperature to rise 
from95°F(35°C). 

(3) The lamp shall be returned to a room ambient 
temperature 73+7-0°F (23+4-0°C) and relative 
humidity of 30 ±10%. The lens shall then be 
cleaned. The photometric output of the lamp on 
lower beam shall then be determined according to 
S6.1. 

(c) Test of the upper beam of a headlamp with two 
standardized replaceable light sources. 

(1) The lens surface of the headlamp that would 
normally be exposed to road dirt shall be sprayed 
uniformly with any appropriate mixture of dust 
and water or other material to reduce the 
photometric output at the test point H-V of the 
lamp to 25+2% of the output originally measured 
in the upper beam photometric test under 
S4. 1.1. 36(b). Such reduction shall be determined 
under the same conditions under which the 
original measurement was made. 

(2) After the determination has been made that 
the photometric output of the lamp has been 
reduced as specified in S6.7.2(cXl), the lamp and its 
mounting hardware shall be mounted in an envi- 
ronmental test chamber in the manner similar to 
that indicated in Figure 7 "Dirt-Ambient Test 
Setup." The headlamp shall be soaked for one hour 
at a temperature of 95+7-0 °F (33+4-0 °C) and then 
the highest combination of filament wattages that 
are intended to be used simultaneously when 
operating on upper beam shall be energized 
simultaneously for one hour in a still air condition, 
allowing the temperature to rise from 95 °F (35 °C). 

(3) The lamp shall be returned to a room ambient 
temperature of 73 +7-0 °F (23+4-0 °C) and relative 
humidity of 30 + 70*. The lens shall then be clean- 
ed. The photometric output of the lamp on the upper 
beam shall be determined according to S6.1. 

S6.8 Humidity. The headlamp mounted on a test 
fixture shall be placed in a controlled environment 



consisting of a temperature of 100 + 7-0 °F 
(38+4-0°C) with a relative humidity of not less 
than 90%. All drain holes, breathing devices, and 
other designed openings shall be in their normal 
operating positions. The headlamp shall be sub- 
jected to 20 consecutive 6-hours test cycles. In each 
cycle, it shall be energized for 1 hour at design 
voltage with the highest combination of filament 
wattages that are intended to be used and then 
deenergized for 5 hours. If the turn signal is pro- 
vided, fokr test purposes it shall flash at 90 flashes 
per minute with a 75 ±2% current "on time." After 
completion of the last cycle, the lamp shall be soak- 
ed for 1 hour at 73 +7-0 °F (20 +4-0 °C) and relative 
humidity of 30 ±10% before it is removed for 
photometric testing. The headlamp shall be tested 
for photometries at 10 ±1 minutes following com- 
pletion of the humidity test. 



14. In the Table II, under the column 
heading, "multipurpose passenger vehicles, 
trucks, and buses", the entry for the item 
"headlamps" is revised to read as follows: 

Headlamps providing the upper beam at the 
same height, 1 on each side of the vertical 
centerline; headlamps providing the lower 
beam, at the same height, 1 on each side of the 
vertical centerline, as far apart as practicable. 
If a single lower beam light source is used in a 
headlamp with two standardized replaceable 
light sources, it shall be the farthest light 
source from the vertical centerline. 



15. In Table IV, under the column heading, 
"Passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, 
trucks, and buses", the entry for the item 
"headlamps" is revised to read as follows: 

Headlamps providing the upper beam at the 
same height, 1 on each side of the vertical 
centerline; headlamps providing the lower beam, 
at the same height, 1 on each side of the vertical 
centerline, as far apart as practicable. If a single 
lower beam light source is used in a headlamp 
with two standardized replaceable light sources, it 
shall be the farthest light source from the vertical 
centerline. 

16. Fiqure 4-1 is revised as follows: 



PART 571; S108-PRE 198 




V) 

en 
c <u 
O -I 

O 03 
-• « 

> < 

Q Q) 
C I- 

e£ 

<S 

o :: 
"E oj 
ra CO 

-C CD 
O — 

2 E 



'E 

Q. 

E 
m 

T3 

CO 
e 

I 

n 

3 
CO 
© 

<u 
o 

J2 

Q. 
<D 

cc 

c 
o 

T3 

a. 

c 
E 
< 

o 

c 
o 

(0 

u 
o 



(0 

c 
.2 

^* 
(D 
O 

"5 

Q. 
CO 

15 
c 
o 
'55 



E 
a 



I 
a> 

V. 



PART 571; S108-PRE 199 



17. The title of Figure 4-2 is amended by re- Issued on May 17 1985 
moving the words "Dimensional * * * Units" from 

the heading. 

18. In Figure 4-4 Dimension G and its dimen- Diane K. Steed 
sions in inches and millimeters are deleted. Administrator 

19. In Figure 7 the width of the Block Box is 50 p.R 21052 
changed from "16W" to "24W". May 22 1985 

20. Figures 9-1 and 9-2 are removed. 



PART 571; S108-PRE 200 



PREAMBLE TO AN AMENDMENT TO 
FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 



108 



Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment; Correction and Clarification 

[Docket No. 83-12; Notice 4] 



ACTION: Final rule; correction and Clarification. 

SUMMARY: This notice corrects an error in the 
amendment published on November 26, 1984 (49 
FR 46386) relating to lamps, reflective devices and 
associated equipment. The error appears in Figure 
lb. It is therefore necessary to correct the error. 
The maximum allowable value for parking lamp 
candlepower was omitted. Clarifications of Figure 
lb are also provided. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the final 
rule on harmonization amendments published on 
November 26, 1984 (49 FR 46386), in establishing 
Figure lb to provide minimum and maximum 
candlepower values for certain lamps, the max- 
imum allowable candlepower for parking lamps 



was inadvertently omitted and must now be 
reinstated. That value is 250 candela at test points 
below the horizontal and 125 canaela or above 
horizontal as specified by SAE Standard J222, 
December 1970, and is incorporated by reference 
in Standard No. 108. Footnotes clarifying re- 
quirements for taillamps and fron yellow turn 
signals are also added. 
' 571.108 [Amended] 

1. The authority citation for Part 571 continues 
to read as follows. 

15 U.S.C. 1392, 1407; delegations of authority at 
49 CFR 1.50 and 49 CFR 501.8. 

2. On page 46390, Figure lb 49 CFR 571.108 is 
revised as follows. 



Lamp 


Lighted Sections 




1 


2 


3 


Stop 

TaiP 

Parking^ 

Red Turn Signal 

Yellow Turn Signal Rear 

Yellow Turn Signal Front 

Yellow Turn Signal Front^ 


80/300 95/360 110/420 

2/18 3.5/20 5.0/25 
4.0/125 

80/300 95/360 110/420 
130/750 150/900 175/1050 
200/- 240/- 275/- 
500/- 600/- 685/- 



PART 571; S108-PRE 201 



Figure lb— Minimum and maximum allowable Issued on May 22, 1985 

candlepower values. 

1. Maximum at H or above. 

2. The maximum candlepower value of 125 ap- 
plies to all test points at H or above. The maximum 
allowable candlepower value below H is 250. 

3. Values apply when the optical axis (filament 

center) of the front-turn signal is at a spacing less Barry Felrice 

than 4 in. (10 cm.) from the lighted edge of the Associate Administrator 

headlamp unit providing the lower beam, or from for Rulemaking 

the lighted edge of any additional lamp installed 

as original equipment or used in lieu of the lower 50 F.R. 21619 

beam. May 28, 1985 



PART 571; S108-PRE 202 



PREAMBLE TO AN AMENDMENT TO 
FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO 108 



Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment; Clarifications 
[Docket No. 83-12; Notice 5] 



ACTION: Final rule; clarifying amendments. 

SUMMARY: This notice clarifies the rule pub- 
lished on November 26, 1984 (49 FR 46366), 
relating to lamps, reflective devices, and 
associated equipment through non-substantive 
amendments to paragraph S4.1.1.11 and Figure 
la. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 6, 1985 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Following 
publication of the harmonization amendments to 
Standard No. 108 on November 26, 1984 (49 FR 
46366), the agency received several requests for 
clarification. After due consideration, it has de- 
cided that clarification is best provided by non- 
substantive amendments to the provisions in ques- 
tion. 

The harmonization amendments substituted 
new paragraphs S4.1.1.11 and S4.1.1.12 for the old 
ones, requiring new Figures la, lb, and Ic, to 
replace former Figure 1. With respect to motor- 
cycle turn signal lamps, the values of Figure lb 
have been substituted for those specified in para- 
graph S4.1.1.30 (which was unchanged and which 
allowed alternative compliance with either one- 
half of certain SAE values, or those of Figure 1). 
This means that S4. 1.1.30 has been superseded, is 
technically incorrect, and may be eliminated from 
the standard. However, because new paragraph 
S4.1.1.11 has omitted stating that motorcyle turn 
signal lamps need meet only one-half the sums 
given in Figure lb, the impression has been 
created that the grouped minimum candlepower 
method for testing motorcycle turn signal lamps is 
no longer available. 

The agency intended no change in this require- 
ment. NHTSA is therefore amending paragraph 



S4.1.1.11 to correct the misimpression, and to 
delete paragraph S4.1.1.30. 

Paragraph S4.1.1.11 also references values in 
Figures la and lb that are substituted for those in 
Table 1 of SAE "J585e Taillamps (at H or above)". 
The agency intended to state "(Maximum at H or 
above)", an omission which could create confusion 
and is now being corrected. 

Finally a footnote is being added to Figure la to 
clarify that values shall be truncated after one 
digit to the right of the decimal point. For example, 
95 cd X 12.6% = 11.875 cd, but the value to use is 
11.8 cd, dropping the last two digits. The Figure is 
also being changed graphically to assure easier 
reading of the test grid percentages. 

Because these amendments are non-substantive 
and provide clarifications, it is hereby found for 
good cause shown that notice and comment are un- 
necessary and an effective date earlier than 180 
days after issuance is in the public interest. The 
amendments are effective upon publication in the 
Federal Register. 

Sec. 571.108 [Amended] 

The authority citation for Part 571 continues to 
read as follows: 

1. The last sentence in paragraph S4.1.1.11 is 
revised to read: 

S. 1.1. 11 ". . .The values specified in Figure la 
and Figure lb are substituted for those specified in 
Table 1 of the following SAE Standards: J222 
Parking Lamps, J585e Taillamps (maximum at H 
or above), J585c Stop Lamps, and J588e Turn 
Signal Lamps, except that motorcycle turn signal 
lamps need meet only one-half of the minimum 
photometric values specified in Figure lb". 

2. Paragraph S4. 1.1.30 is deleted. 



PART 571; S108-PRE 203 



3. Figure la is revised as follows: 





Test points (deg) 


















- 


Turn Signal 


Stop 


Parking 


Tail 


lOU 


, lOD... 


. . . 5L, 5R 


20 


20 


20 


20 






20L, 


20R 


12.5 


12.5 


10 


15 


5U, 


5D 


, . lOL, 


lOR 


37.5 


37.5 


20 


40 






V 




87.5 


87.5 


70 


90 






lOL, 


lOR 


50 


50 


35 


40 


H.. 




5L, 5R 


100 


100 


90 


100 






V 




100 


100 


100 


100 



Figure la— Required percentage of minimum 
candlepower of Figure lb. 

Minimum design candlepower requirements are 
determined by multiplying the percentage given in 
this Figure by the minimum allowable 
candlepower values in Figure lb. The resulting 
values shall be truncated after one digit to the 
right of the decimal point. 



Issued on May 30, 1985 



Barry Felrice 
Associate Administrator 
for Rulemaking 

50 F.R. 23813 
June 6, 1985 



PART 571; S108-PRE 204 



PREAMBLE TO AN AMENDMENT TO 
FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 108 

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Lamps, 

Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment 

[Docket No. 82-16; Notice 4] 



ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This notice amends Safety Standard 
No. 108 to allow installation of modulating 
headlamps on motorcycles. Such a headlamp, 
whose use is currently not allowed, could improve 
conspicuity of a motorcycle and its operator during 
daylight. The rule completes agency action follow- 
ing the agency's grant of a petition by Harley- 
Davidson Motor Co., Inc. A notice of proposed 
rulemaking (NPRM) was published on August 28, 
1984, which was a revision of the notice of pro- 
posed rulemaking published on September 23, 
1982. Although the notice also proposed amending 
Safety Standard No. 123 to establish location and 
operation requirements for headlamp modulator 
switches for new motorcycles on which modulating 
headlamps have been installed as original equip- 
ment, this proposal has not been adopted. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: August 21, 1985. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Paragraph 
S4.6(b) of Standard No. 108 requires headlamps to 
be steady-burning when in use although allowing 
them to be flashed automatically for signalling pur- 
poses. This paragraph allows cycles of activation 
and deactivation of the headlamp but it has not 
been interpreted as allowing cycles of varying in- 
tensity (modulation). 

Harley-Davidson Motor Co., Inc., of Milwaukee, 
a manufacturer of motorcycles, wished to in- 
troduce headlamp modulation as an option and 
petitioned the agency for an amendment to Stan- 
dard No. 108 to allow it. The agency granted the 
petition and published an NPRM on September 23, 
1982 (Notice 1, 47 FR 42009), later extending the 



time in which to comment (Notice 2, 47 FR 47896) 
upon petition by the American Motorcycle Associa- 
tion. A revised NPRM was published on August 
28, 1984 (Notice 3, 49 FR 34050). 



Background of 1982 NPRM 
In 1979, on behalf of the agency, the Highway 
Safety Research Institute evaluated various 
means of increasing the conspicuity of motorcycles 
and their operators (DOT-HS-805143). More than 
30 types of conspicuity treatments were developed. 
Three principal means of improvement were 
found. One was the wearing by the cyclist of a high 
visibility vest and helmet cover. Another was con- 
tinual operation of the low beam of the headlamp 
during daylight (it is now the practice of virtually 
all cycle manufacturers to wire the headlamp so 
that it is on when the engine is running). The third 
was modulation of the upper beam of the headlamp 
from full to low intensity at three times per second. 
Data show that about 75 percent of motorcycle ac- 
cidents occur in daytime. Therefore, enhancement 
of conspicuity during daylight hours is manifestly 
in the interests of motor vehicle safety. For this 
reason and because some State legislatures have 
shown interest in allowing modulated headlamps 
on their highways, NHTSA tentatively concluded 
that cyclists should be afforded an option to choose 
a headlamp wired to modulate on the upper beam 
from higher to lower intensity at a pulse rate from 
150 to 240 cycles per minute. 

The agency particularly solicited comments from 
States, and from individuals who had used these 
lamps. Emphasis was placed on whether there was 
a potential for misuse; for example, the likelihood 
of use of the modulating mode under conditions 



PART 571; S108-PRE 205 



such as inclement weather or dusk when the 
steady-bvirning mode is required for safety. 

Comments on 1982 NPRM 

Over 150 comments were received on the initial 
NPRM, of which only 17 could be characterized as 
objecting to the proposal. The principal comments 
in opposition were submitted by the States of 
Maryland and Minnesota. Each raised the possibil- 
ity that a motorcycle with a modulating white 
headlamp might be perceived as a potential 
emergency vehicle, since flashing white lights in 
those States are generally reserved for emergency 
vehicles. Maryland commented that a mixture of 
motorcycles with and without headlamps would 
compound the potential for confusion. It suggested 
mandatory usage of a measure other than modu- 
lating headlamps to enhance conspicuity. Min- 
nesota asked for safeguards to prevent the 
modulator from being operated when steady- 
burning headlamps are required. Commenters 
also asked for an automatic fail-safe provision to 
allow headlamp use if the modulator or its circuit 
failed. 

The issue of "photic driving" was raised by the 
Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, the Na- 
tional Society for the Prevention of Blindness, and 
others. This issue concerns potential adverse reac- 
tions in the central nervous system from regularly 
flashing lights, similar to epileptic seizures. These 
are termed "photic driving" and can occur in per- 
sons not otherwise prone to epilepsy. These com- 
menters recommended that the agency determine 
whether modulating headlamps would cause a 
photic driving problem prior to permitting their 
use. Their main concern related to the rate of 
modulation that would be allowed. One com- 
menter, the California Highway Patrol, suggested 
a rate between 200 and 280 cycles per minute, 
specified for use in that State. 

A final group of commenters expressed concern 
that modulating headlamps would prove distract- 
ing to other drivers, either when viewed directly 
oncoming, or indirectly in rearview mirrors. 

The agency gave lengthy consideration to all 
these comments and concluded that none of them 
justified termination of the rulemaking action. It 
also concluded that the standard should not be 
amended in the manner proposed, and that a fur- 
ther notice of proposed rulemaking would be re- 
quired to implement the suggestions and allay the 
concerns expressed in the comments to the initial 
proposal. 



The 1984 NPRM 

The agency did not deem it likely that a 
modulating headlamp would be perceived as 
belonging to an emergency vehicle for several 
reasons. One is that usually there would be only 
one headlamp, or two closely spaced headlamps, 
flashing rather than a widely spaced pair as would 
be the case with an emergency vehicle. Also, 
emergency vehicles would normally have either 
red or blue flashing lights in addition to the 
flashing headlamps, which a motorcycle would not 
have. The modulated headlamp would also be 
substantially different than the white "strobe" 
lights that are used on emergency vehicles and 
which usually are intense, of short duration and 
flash at a higher rate than proposed for modulated 
headlamps. "Strobe" lights also have a sharp 
distinction between the "on" condition and the 
"off" condition whereas modulated headlamps 
make a gradual transition from a higher intensity 
to a lesser one. 

NHTSA tentatively concurred with Minnesota's 
request for safeguards against misuse, and pro- 
posed, in essence, that any modulating system be 
automatically activated by ambient light so that 
when steady -burning headlamps are required (e.g., 
at night), the modulator could not be used. Also 
proposed was a requirement to prevent excessive 
voltage drops in the circuit caused by inferior 
switches. The limit for voltage drop was proposed 
at .45 volt. 

The agency reviewed its proposed flash rate of 
150 to 240 cycles per minute, and concluded that 
150 cycles was too close to that of turn signals and 
hazard warning signals for its intended purpose. 
Because the State of California had specified 200 
to 280 cycles per minute for 3 1/2 years with no ap- 
parent problems, the agency proposed a cycle rate 
of 240+40 per minute. 

With respect to the photic driving phenomenon, 
the agency tentatively concluded that modulating 
headlamps would cause no problem during day- 
time if a pulse rate of 4 per second (240 cycles per 
minute) were used. This conclusion was based 
upon two aspects of the phenomenon: the pulse 
rate of the light and the amount of contrast be- 
tween the light and the background. From the 
available studies on the subject, it appeared that 
people are most likely to be affected if the light 
flashed at about 10 flashes per second (600 per 
minute) and/or when the background is very dark. 
Thus, modulation of headlamps at night within 
the proposed pulse rate could possibly produce a 



PART 571; S108-PRE 206 



signal that is in the range of reported conditions 
that produce photic reactions. Accordingly, 
NHTSA proposed, in essence, that modulation be 
allowed only during daylight conditions. This 
could be accomplished through the use of a light 
sensor, which NHTSA believed could be incor- 
porated into the system for less than $1.00. 
Specific comments were sought on the incremental 
cost of such a sensor. With such a device, headlamp 
modulation would cease when the level of ambient 
light falls below the normal daytime light level (or 
below the level of high intensity street lights). The 
sensor would be mounted either upward to mea- 
sure direct light, from above the motorcycle, or 
downward to measure indirect light, reflected off 
the pavement beneath the motorcycle. 

In developing this aspect of the proposal, 
NHTSA gave close attention to comments from 
Dotech, Inc., submitted to the docket on January 9, 
1984, and April 30, 1984. Dotech had measured 
both incident light and reflected light levels from 
various types of street lighting in parking lots and 
on parkways at night to determine appropriate 
values for direct or reflected light to deactivate the 
modulator. Dotech found that incident light levels 
did not change significantly when it moved its 
light meter from waist level up and down several 
feet, while conducting direct light measurements 
under street lights located 30 feet above the pave- 
ment. Dotech initially concluded that the modula- 
tor sensor should have a vertical orientation to 
avoid light reflected from headlamps or other 
sources, and that appropriate values appeared to 
be 430 lux (40 foot-candles) of direct light, or 150 
lux (13.9 foot-candles) of indirect reflected light. 
Subsequently, however, Dotech recommended 270 
lux (25 foot-candles) for direct light and 60 lux (5.6 
foot-candles) for reflected light as more appropriate 
based on its experiments. Accordingly, NHTSA 
proposed that modulator systems be equipped with 
a sensor which would deactivate the modulator 
whenever the light level appropriate for the sen- 
sor's orientation is reached. The upward or 
downward orientation of the sensor would be at 
the option of the manufacturer. The light source 
NHTSA proposed to use in its compliance test 
of the systems would be a tungsten filament lamp 
operating at 3000° Kelvin. Because of the 
dearth of comments in this area, other than that of 
Dotech, and because of Dotech's own modified con- 
clusions, NHTSA was particularly interested in 
additional comments on the appropriateness of the 
values of direct and reflected light that is proposed. 



There were also additional features that were 
not proposed in the initial notice that NHTSA pro- 
posed to incorporate into a modulating headlamp 
standard. The first of these was the proposal of a 
modulation depth limit to assure that not less than 
17 percent of full luminous intensity is available 
regardless of lamp wattage. This would serve to 
prevent early bulb filament failure and to ensure 
that a distinction remains between the modulating 
headlamp and flashing strobe lights used on 
emergency vehicles, as well as lessening the 
likelihood of a "photic response". 

To assure performance of the headlamp modula- 
tor, NHTSA proposed an accelerated environmen- 
tal requirement comprised of a temperature and 
humidity test. NHTSA proposed to use the SAE 
Standard for vehicle hazard warning signal 
flashers, J945b, as a guide to thermal extremes, ac- 
ceptable voltage variation and general procedure. 
Humidity exposure was added as were perfor- 
mance checks at each environmental extreme. The 
test duration proposed was 60 hours. 

With respect to the aftermarket, NHTSA pro- 
posed only that each modulator be labelled with the 
maximum wattage for which it is intended. Some 
motorcycles, for example, may have two 70-watt 
headlamps while others may have a single 35-watt 
headlamp. The consumer must be provided infor- 
mation to determine whether a modulator is suffi- 
cient to drive high-wattage or multiple headlamps. 

A companion amendment to Standard No. 123, 
Motorcycle Controls and Displays, was pro- 
posed for location and operation requirements for 
modulator switches on vehicles equipped by their 
manufacturers with modulating headlamps. The 
agency specifically invited comments on the loca- 
tion of the Modulate position on the Headlamp 
Beam Control Switch. 

Comments on 1984 NPRM 
Over 50 comments were received in response to 
the second NPRM, virtually all of which supported 
it and some of which suggested minor modifica- 
tions and refinements that the agency has adopted. 
The first significant issue raised was whether 
modulation might not be allowed on the lower 
beam (only the upper beam was proposed), with 
some commenters expressing the opinion that the 
lower beam modulation might be less irritating to 
oncoming drivers, as well as being consistent with 
the driving requirement of dimming upper beams 
when approaching other vehicles. Intuitively this 
comment has appeal and NHTSA has concluded 



PART 571; S108-PRE 207 



that lower beam modulation should be permitted 
for the reasons discussed below. 

In studies of da)^ime running lights, a value of 
1500 candela has been found sufficient to demon- 
strate conspicuity of a passenger car more than a 
mile away. Therefore, the 3000 candela that most 
motorcycle headlamps have at the H-V test point 
would be more than sufficient for conspicuity. In 
addition, the requirement that the minimum in- 
tensity during modulation be not less that 17% of 
full-on intensity during modulation reduces the 
possibility that modulation will be less effective for 
conspicuity than a steady-burning lower beam. 

There are additional factors in support of allow- 
ing modulation on the lower beam. An increasing 
number of motorcycles are being equipped with 
headlamps of greater wattage. For these motor- 
cycles, use of the upper beam for modulation might 
create a glare problem. On the other hand, smaller 
motorcycles with headlamps of no greater output 
than 35 watts may find an upper beam modulator 
more effective. Based upon the comments, NHTSA 
has decided to allow modulation on either the up- 
per or lower beam, at the manufacturer's option. 
The headlamp would not be permitted to modulate 
on the beam not chosen, and therefore, the 
operator would not be able to switch the beam for 
which modulation was produced by the manufac- 
turer. NHTSA also proposed that the modulator be 
equipped with a sensor that would activate and 
deactivate it. Comments were generally directed to 
factors which might impair satisfactory operation 
of the sensor, such as mounting in a shielded loca- 
tion where light might not reach it, or in a location 
where it could be obscured by dirt. The effect of 
either of these factors would be to deactivate the 
device at a time when it should be functioning. No 
further comments were received on the issue of 
photic driving. 

Harley-Davidson expressed particular concern 
that the reliability of the sensor would be reduced 
by the addition of components to provide the light 
sensing functions, raising the possibility that if it 
failed in one mode it might not operate at all, but 
that failiu-e in another would cause continuous 
operation. Further, comments were made to the ef- 
fect that a manufacturer of a modulator, Dotech, 
had applied for patents that cover the construction 
of the light sensor and that NHTSA might be in 
the position of having written a standard that 
mandated a design that was under the monopoly 
control of the patent holder. NHTSA has reviewed 
these comments. The manual by-pass switch re- 



quired for these systems will assure the restora- 
tion of normal operation in the event of a malfunc- 
tion in the modulator. Further, the humidity-tem- 
perature test that was proposed and now adopted 
will insure system reliability. Although Dotech 
has applied for patents, it is only one manufacturer 
of modulating devices. While Dotech uses a light 
sensing transistor for a light detector, a number of 
other types of light sensors can be used, such as 
soIeit cells and light dependent resistors. 

The notice proposed a maximum allowable 
voltage drop of .45 volt across the modulator diu"- 
ing operation. Koito commented that it was im- 
possible to meet this requirement with high wat- 
tage headlamps since the voltage drop across the 
transistor is increased. Koito recommended 1.5 
volts, or, alternatively no requirement. The sug- 
gested 1.5 volt value is unacceptable to the agency 
as it could result in a reduction to 65% of normal 
intensity during nighttime when the lights are 
steady-burning. NHTSA is aware of transistor 
switches which are available which can handle 
power requirements without excessive voltage 
drop. Another possible solution to the problem is 
the use of mechanical relays in a hybrid circuit 
with switch transistors. Therefore NHTSA has 
adopted the proposed voltage drop of .45. 

Part of the proposed temperature-humidity test 
involves operation of the modulator at -25 °F for 
three hours. Some commenters objected to the tem- 
perature arguing that few will ride their motor- 
cycles at such an extremely low temperature. The 
agency wishes to insure that modulators remain 
operative when subjected to temperatures of the 
sort that have been experienced through wide areas 
of the United States during winters in the past ten 
years. Motorcycles may be exposed to this extreme 
at times other than when in use; for example, when 
parked overnight. Current SAE standards on 
flashers and switches require operation at -25 °F 
and the proposed test values were taken from these 
SAE requirements which reflect industry capability 
and practice. The agency understands that modula- 
tors can operate at this temperature, and is 
therefore adopting the value as proposed. 

NHTSA also proposed that the headlamp dimmer 
switch incorporate a modulator position when this 
feature is offered as original equipment. Two com- 
menters indicated that frequent use of the modula- 
tor switch is not required, and that it does not have 
to be as accessible as the upper-lower beam switch. 
In addition, the requirement would not cover the 
switch for aftermarket modulators. 



PART 571; S108-PRE 208 



For these reasons, NHTSA has not adopted the 
position indicator proposal, nor the companion pro- 
posal to amend Safety Standard No. 123 to identify 
the modulator position. 

NHTSA has considered the impacts of this rule 
and has determined that it is neither major within 
the meaning of Executive Order 12291 nor signifi- 
cant under Department of Transportation 
guidelines regarding regulatory policy and pro- 
cedure. The rule will have an impact only on those 
who voluntarily choose to produce and buy an 
alternative headlamp. Because the modulating 
headlamp will not be required but is simply an op- 
tion to a standard motorcycle headlamp, there will 
be no mandatory increased manufacturing costs 
connected with this proposal. The cost to the pur- 
chaser who chooses a headlamp with a modulating 
switch would be about $40. However, since this 
feature would presumably be desired only by those 
purchasers who selected it as an option, NHTSA 
does not anticipate any impact on motorcycle sales. 
The impacts of this rule are so minimal that 
preparation of a regulatory impact analysis or a 
full regulatory evaluation is not warranted. 

NHTSA has analyzed this rule for the purpose of 
the National Environmental Policy Act, and has 
determined that it would not have a significant ef- 
fect on the human environment since neither the 
weight not quantity of materials used in the 
manufacture of the lamps is greatly affected. 

The agency has also considered the impacts of 
this rule in relation to the Regulatory Flexibility 
Act. I certify that this rule would not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities. Accordingly, the agency 
has not prepared a flexibility analysis. Manufac- 
turers of motorcycle headlamps and modulators, 
those affected by the proposal, are generally not 
small businesses within the meaning of the Regu- 
latory Flexibility Act. Further, compliance with 
the adopted changes is optional. Small organiza- 
tions and governmental jurisdictions would be af- 
fected only to the extent that law enforcement 
agencies chose to purchase motorcycles with 
modulating headlamps. 

Because the amendment relieves a restriction 
and does not impose a burden upon any party, it is 
hereby found for good cause shown that an effec- 
tive date earlier than 180 days after issuance is in 
the public interest, and its amendment is effective 
30 days after publication in the Federal Register. 

The engineer and attorney primarily responsible 
for this notice are Jere Medlin and Taylor Vinson, 



respectively. 

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571 

Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor vehicles, 
Motor vehicle equipment, Lamps-reflective devices 
and associated equipment. 



PART 571-FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE 
SAFETY STANDARDS 

In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR 
571.108 is amended as follows: 

§ 571.108 [Amended] 

1. The authority citation for Part 571 continues 
to read as follows: 

Authority: 15 U.S.C. 1392, 1401, 1403, 1407; 
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50. 

2. Paragraph S4.6 is redesignated S4.5.11 and 
revised to read: 

S4.5.11 The wiring requirements for lighting 
equipment in use are: 

(a) Turn signal lamps, hazard warning signal 
lamps, and school bus warning lamps shall be 
wired to flash; 

(b) High-mounted stop lamps on passenger cars 
manufactured on or after August 1, 1984, but 
before September 1, 1986, may flash when the 
hazard warning system is activated; 

(c) Headlamps and side marker lamps may be 
wired to flash for signalling purposes; 

(d) A motorcycle headlamp may be wired to allow 
either its upper beam or its lower beam, but not 
both, to modulate from a higher intensity to a 
lower intensity in accordance with section S4.6; 

(e) All other lamps shall be wired to be steady- 
burning. 

3. A new section S4.6, Motorcycle headlamp 
modulation system is adopted to read: 

S4.6 Motorcycle headlamp modulation system. 

S4.6.1 A headlamp on a motorcycle may be wired 
to modulate either the upper beam or the lower 
beam from its maximum intensity to a lesser in- 
tensity provided that; 

(a) The rate of modulation shall be 240 ±40 cycles 
per minute. 

(b) The headlamp shall be operated at maximum 
power for 50 to 70 percent of each cycle. 

(c) The lowest intensity at any test point shall be 
not less than 17 percent of the maximum intensity 
measured at the same point. 

(d) The modulator switch shall be wired in the 
power lead of the beam filament being modulated 



PART 571; S108-PRE 209 



and not in the ground side of the circuit. 

(e) Means shall be provided so that both the 
lower beam and upper beam remain operable in 
the event of a modulator failure. 

(f) The system shall include a sensor mounted 
with the axis of its sensing element perpendicular 
to a horizontal plane. Headlamp modulation shall 
cease whenever the level of light emitted by a 
tungsten filament light operating at 3000° Kelvin 
is either less than 270 lux (25 foot candles) of direct 
light for upward pointing sensors or less than 60 
lux (5.6 foot-candles) of reflected light for 
downward pointing sensors. The light is measured 
by a silicon cell type light meter that is located at 
the sensor and pointing in the same direction as 
the sensor. A Kodak Gray Card (Kodak R-27) is 
placed at ground level to simulate the road surface 
in testing downward pointing sensors. 

(g) When tested in accordance with the test pro- 
file shown in Figure 9, the voltage drop across the 
modulator when the lamp is on at all test condi- 
tions for 12 volt systems and 6 volt systems shall 
not be greater that .45 volt. The modulator shall 
meet all the provisions of the standard after com- 
pletion of the test profile shown in Figure 9. 

(h) Means shall be provided so that both the 
lower and upper beam function at design voltage 
when the headlamp beam control switch is in 



either the lower or upper beam position when the 
modulator is off. 

S4.6.2(a) Each motorcycle headlamp modulator 
not intended as original equipment, or its con- 
tainer, shall be labelled with the maximum wat- 
tage, and the minimum wattage, appropriate for 
its use. Additionally, each such modulator shall 
comply with S4.6.1 (a) through (g) when connected 
to a headlamp of the maximum rated power and a 
headlamp of the minimum rated power and shall 
provide means so that the modulated beam func- 
tions at design voltage when the modulator is off. 

(b) Instructions, with a diagram, shall be 
provided for mounting the light sensor including 
location on the motorcycle, distance above the road 
surface, and orientation with respect to the light. 

4. A new Figure 9 would be added as follows: 

Issued on July 16, 1985 



Diane K. Steed 
Administrator 

50 F.R. 29676 
July 22, 1985 



PART 571; S108-PRE 210 




s 



8 



— s 



— § 



O 
0) 









C 


in 
n 






0) 




V> 




E 




I 




c 
o 


^ 


0) 


O) 


■ ^ 




fc 


0) 


> 




1- 


3 


c 






0) 


UJ 



0) 



0) 

Q. 

E 

0) 

H 



CM pj 



(o/o) LunH lay pue (jo) ajniBjadiuai 



PART 571; S108-PRE 211-12 



PREAMBLE TO AN AMENDMENT TO 
FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 108 

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; 

Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment 

[Docket No. 82-04; Notice 2] 



ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This notice amends Safety Standard 
No. 108 to provide an alternate location for front 
identification lamps on multipurpose passenger 
vehicles, trucks and buses whose overall width ex- 
ceeds 80 inches. The rule allows them to be 
mounted on the top of the cab instead of "as close 
as practicable to the top of the vehicle." This action 
completes rulemaking on a petition by the Truck 
Body and Equipment Association. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 12, 1985 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Paragraph 
S4.1.1 and Table I of 49 CFR 571.108, Motor Vehi- 
cle Safety Standard No. 108, requires trucks, mul- 
tipurpose passenger vehicles, and buses of 80 or 
more inches overall width to be equipped with a 
series of three identification lamps mounted on the 
front and rear of the vehicle. According to Table II 
of Standard No. 108, this location must be "as close 
as practicable to the top of the vehicle." The Truck 
Body and Equipment Association (TBEA) petition- 
ed for an amendment that would allow front iden- 
tification lamps to be mounted, as an alternative, 
on the cab. In TBEA's view, safety would not be re- 
duced since the lamps would still perform their 
function of identifying the presence of large ve- 
hicles in the roadway, and clearance lamps would 
still mark the height and width of the vehicle. It 
argued that an analogous precedent was found in 
paragraph S4.3.1.6 which allows clearance lamps 
to be mounted on the cab of a truck tractor to in- 
dicate overall width of the cab rather than the 
vehicle. To allow identification lamps also to be 



mounted on the cab will, in TBEA's opinion, re- 
duce manufacturing costs. 

A notice of proposed rulemaking on this subject 
was published on February 22, 1982, and an oppor- 
tunity afforded for comment (47 FR 7711). 

Nine comments were received on the proposal, 
six of them directly supporting it. The three re- 
maining comments were directed towards an al- 
leged necessity for a general review of require- 
ments for identification lamps. Motor Vehicle 
Manufacturers Association and American Truck- 
ing Association commented that in their view no 
safety basis existed for evaluating the proposal. 
Wisconsin Electric Power Company suggested that 
the lamps could be eliminated. 

The agency did not consider elimination of the 
identification lamps, convinced that they are 
needed on larger vehicles to indicate their pre- 
sence on narrow or congested roads, curves, and 
during inclement weather, in order to afford other 
motorists a cue to vehicle size, assisting them in 
avoiding accidents. 

Those supporting the proposal pointed out that 
tractor-trailers are required to have identification 
lamps on the truck tractor cab, but not on the 
trailer, and therefore the cab is an appropriate lo- 
cation for them. Further, there is a potential for a 
small cost savings. Many chassis-cab manufac- 
turers install identification lamps on the cab. If the 
body mounted to it is higher than the cab, the 
final-stage manufacturer must now add an addi- 
tional set of identification lamps to meet the re- 
quirement that they be located "as close as practic- 
able to the top of the vehicle." Implementation of 
the proposal will relieve the final-stage manufac- 



PART 571; S108-PRE 213 



turer of the necessity of adding identification 
lamps when they are already on the chassis-cab. 
This would serve to reduce costs where this 
manufacturing practice is being followed. 

NHTSA has decided to adop the proposal. In re- 
cognition of the fact that many manufacturers 
may wish to avail themselves of this option on a re- 
gular basis, NHTSA is amending Table II to speci- 
fy that mounting the identification lamps as close 
as practicable to the top of the cab is an alternate 
location rather than one which is only an exception 
to the general rule that such lamps be mounted as 
close as practicable to the top of the vehicle. 
Potential Benefits. Costs and Other Impacts 

The primary benefit attributable to implementa- 
tion of the rule is the slight reduction in the cost of 
manufacturing which petitioner believes will oc- 
cur. Because identification lamps are presently re- 
quired, there will be no increased manufacturing 
cost connected with this rule. NHTSA has consid- 
ered the impacts of this rule and has determined 
that it is neither major within the meaning of E.O. 
12291 nor significant under Department of Trans- 
portation guidelines regarding regulatory policy 
and procedure. The rule will have an impact only 
on those who voluntarily change their lighting 
systems from one location to another. The impacts 
are so minimal that preparation of a regulatory 
evaluation is not warranted. This rule would not 
have a significant effect on the human environ- 
ment since neither the weight nor quantity of ma- 
terials used in the manufacture on installation of 
the lamps is affected. Further, no impact on safety 
is anticipated. I certify that this rule would not 
have a significant economic impact on a substan- 
tial number of small entities. Manufacturers of 
motor vehicles and chassis-cabs, those affected by 
the rule, are generally not small businesses within 
the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. 
Further, those effects would not be significant 
given the minimal cost reductions associated with 
the rule. 

Finally, small organizations and governmental 
jurisdictions will not be significantly affected 
since the price of new vehicles will be minimally 
impacted. 

Because the rule relieves a restriction and im- 
poses on additional burdent on any person, it is 



hereby found for good cause shown that an effec- 
tive date earlier that 180 days after issuance is in 
the public interest. The admendment is effective 
30 days after its publication in the Federal 
Register. 

In consideration of the foregoing, Table II of 49 
CFR 571.108 is amended as follows: 

TABLE II-LOCATION OF REQUIRED 
EQUIPMENT 

Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles, Trucks, 

Trailers, and Buses, of 80 or More Inches Overall 

Width 

Location on— 



Item Multipurpose passenger ** * 

vehicles, trucks, and buses 



Identification On the front and rear— 3 
lamps lamps, amber in front, 

red in rear, as close as 
practicable to the top of 
the vehicle, at the same 
height, as close as prac- 
ticable to the vertical 
centerline, with lamp 
centers spaced not less 
than 6 inches or more 
than 12 inches apart. 
Alternatively, the front 
lamps may be located as 
close as practicable to 
the top of the cab. 



Issued on September 4, 1985 



Dianne K. Steed 
Administrator 

50 FR 36995 
September 11, 1985 



PART 571; S108-PRE 214 



PREAMBLE TO AN AMENDMENT TO 
FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLES SAFETY STANDARD NO. 108 



Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment; Corrections 
[Docl^et No. 81-11; Notice 14] 



ACTION; Final rule; corrections. 

SUMMARY: This notice corrects three errors in the 
amendment published on May 22, 1985, relating to 
lamps, reflective devices and associated equip- 
ment. The errors appear in the amendments to 
paragraph S4.1.1.36, paragraph S4.1.1.36(eX4Xii), 
and paragraph S6.7.1(a). It is therefore necessary 
to correct the errors. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On May 22, 

1985, Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 was 
amended to allow motor vehicles other than motor- 
cycles to be equipped with replaceable bulb head- 
lamp systems consisting of either four lamps with 
single standardized replaceable light sources, or 
two lamps each with two such light sources. (50 FR 
21052) The Notice consisted of 20 amendments and 
contained several errors. This notice refers to the 
numbers of the amendments containing the errors, 
and corrects them. 

In amendment 3, paragraph S4. 1.1.36 was 
amended to delete the word "two." That word, 
however, appears in two places in the paragraph 
and it was NHTSA's intent to delete it only with 
reference to permissible headlighting systems on 
four-wheeled motor vehicles, and not to delete it 
for motorcycles. In reviewing this error, NHTSA 
has concluded that the paragraph should be 
rewritten to more clearly state NHTSA's intent, 
and thus is correcting the error by revising this 
paragraph in a manner which does so. 

In amendment 9, as published, the last sentence 
of paragraph S4.1.1.36(eX4Xii) reads: "The lens 
of each such headlamps shall be permanently 



marked with the letter 'U.'" A corrective amend- 
ment is made to delete a superfluous "such." 

In amendment 13, the title of paragraph 
S6.7.1(a) appeared as "Test for a headlamp with on 
standardized replaceable light source." "On" 
should be "one." 

1. Paragraph 84.1.1.36 is revised to read: 
"S4.1.1.36 Instead of being equipped with a 

headlighting system specified in Table I or Table 
III, a motor vehicle manufacturer on or after July 
1, 1983, may be equipped with a system of one or 
two replaceable bulb headlamps, if the vehicle is a 
motorcycle, or two or four replaceable bulb head- 
lamps, if the vehicle is a passenger car, multipur- 
pose passenger vehicle, truck or bus. Each replace- 
able bulb headlamp shall be designed to conform to 
the following requirements." 

2. On page 21056, the last sentence of subpara- 
graph (eK4Xii) of paragraph S4.1.1.36 is revised to 
read: "The lens of each such headlamp shall be 
permanently marked with the letter 'U."' 

3. On page 21057, the title of subparagraph (a) of 
paragraph, 86. 7.1 is revised to read ' (a) Test for a 
headlamp with one standarized replaceable light 
source." 

Issued on September 10, 1985 



Barry Felrice 
Associate Administrator 
for Ruleing King 

50 FR 37857 
September 18, 1985 



PART 571; S108-PRE 215-216 



PREAMBLE TO AN AMENDMENT TO 
FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 108 



Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment 
(Docltet No. 84-4; Notice 4) 



ACTION: Final Rule-Modifications to Type F 
Headlamp Systems: Optional Compliance. 

SUMMARY: This notice amends Ssifety Standard No. 
108 to allow a manufacturer to provide an enhanced 
upper beam in Type F headlamp systems by wiring 
the lower beam headlamp to be activated 
simultaneously with the upper beam headlamp. 

Type F headlamps feature identical aiming and 
seating planes, with the intention that re-aiming will 
not be necessary when a correctly aimed Type F 
headlamp is replaced with another Type F. The 
standard is also amended to provide that each half of 
the system may be aimed simultaneously if the 
manufacturer chooses (aiming the lower beam 
headlamp would automatically re-aim the upper beam 
lamp), but in order to permit this option, the re-aim 
tolerance of V* degree for photometric performance 
compliance will not be permitted for the upper beam 
headlamp in the Type F system. 

This rule is based upon comments to a notice of pro- 
posed rulemaking published on May 13, 1985. The 
agency also proposed, but is not adopting the pro- 
posal that Type F lamps be permitted to have an 
auxiliary filament in the lower beam lamp to be used 
for purposes other than upper or lower beam 
performance. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 18, 1986 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: When Standard 
No. 108 was amended to adopt the small four-lamp 
rectangular headlamp system known as Type F (49 
FR 50176), three aspects of the original proposal (49 
FR 18321) were reserved for further discussion. 
These were the use of the lower beam headlamp:. 



(Type LF) when the upper beam lamps (Type UF) 
were activated, simultaneous aim of pairs of 
headlamps on each side of the vehicle, and the 
desirability of an optional auxiliary filament in the 
lower beam lamp. NHTSA had decided that further 
comment on these issues was desirable before a deci- 
sion could be made about incorporating them into the 
Type F system, and issued a second proposal on May 
13, 1985 (50 FR 19986). This notice discusses the 
second proposal and NHTSA' s decisions with respect 
to modifications in the Type F system. 

Simultaneoiis Use of Upper and 
Lower Beam Headlamps 
NHTSA finds merit in the concept of having addi- 
tional light available during upper beam operation to 
increase roadway illumination. Such light is readily 
available from the lower beam filament in the LF 
lamp. However, since Type F's upper beam (Type 
UF) lamp alone can meet current upper beam 
photometric requirements and already exceeds cur- 
rent minimum requirements, there is little or no basis 
upon which to mandate even more light by requiring 
the simultaneous use of both beams during upper 
beam selection, and NHTSA therefore proposed that 
this method of wiring the headlamps be at the option 
of the vehicle manufacturer. However, in order to 
reduce the possibility of excessive foregroimd light 
and glare resulting from simultaneous use, NHTSA 
proposed two new lower beam test points in Type LF 
lamps, and maximum photometric values for them, 
7,000 cd at test point 4D-V (Down-Vertical), and 
5,000 cd at the H-V (Horizontal-Vertical) axis. 
NHTSA tentatively concluded that adopting these 
new maximum values at 4D-V and H-V would allow 
safe simultaneous use of the lower and upper beam 
headlamps during upper beam operation. 



PART 571; S 108-PRE 217 



Commenters supported the proposal as specified. 
The California Highway Patrol (CHP) expressed 
reservations about removing the option from the 
driver's control though convinced of the occasional 
utility of a supplement to the upper beam. 

NHTSA does not agree with the CHP on this issue. 
While a driver might be in the best position to decide 
whether to use additional illumination, as NHTSA 
has stated before, it believes that additional specifica- 
tions would be needed to ensure fail-safe switching 
from the upper beam or upper/ lower beam to the 
lower beam alone, and that an additional warning 
telltale might be required as well. NHTSA does not 
believe that the benefits of allowing this choice to the 
driver would outweigh the costs, and the final rule 
adopts simultaneous use as a wiring option for the 
manufacturer rather than an operational option for 
the driver. 

Simultaneous Aim (Co-Aiming) of Headlamps 
General Motors, the developer of the Type F 
system, recommended a method to aim simultane- 
ously both the upper and lower beam headlamps. 
Both lamps would be mounted in a common housing 
and have a common aim adjustment to permit such 
"co-aiming". It would be possible to co-aim both 
lamps as long as the combination of the two lamps in 
the common co-aiming assembly could meet the 
overall photometric requirements. The agency pro- 
posed that Type F lamps could be mounted on com- 
mon and parallel seating and aiming planes provided 
that: (a) when tested in accordance with the provi- 
sions of Standard No. 108, the assembly is designed 
to conform to the test point values of the revised 
Figure 15 and (b) there shall be no provision for 
adjustment between the common or parallel aiming 
and seating planes of the two lamps. The agency also 
proposed to remove the ± V* degree re-aim tolerance 
for the UF headlamp and to permit that tolerance to 
be allowed for the co-aiming assembly. 

Ten of the 11 commenters to the docket concurred, 
the eleventh. Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, 
offering no comment on the point. Many of the com- 
ments asked for clarification of the language in the 
test procedure for co-aiming. The agency has clarified 
the test procedure by providing that the assembly 
shall be located on a goniometer placed at least 60 
feet from the photometer. The LF lamp is aimed 
mechanically by centering the unit on the photometer 
axis and aligning its aiming plane to be perpendicular 
to the photometer axis. The assembly is then moved 



in a plane parallel to the established aiming plane of 
the LF unit until the UF lamp is centered on the 
photometer axis. The photometry measurement of 
the UF lamp is completed by using the aiming plane 
thus established, and allowing a ±V4 degree re-aim 
tolerance for meeting the test points as measured in 
the co-aimed assembly. 

To provide consistency in the aiming requirements, 
it was also proposed that testing of the individual 
lamps could not include a ± V4 degree re-aim tolerance 
for the UF lamp alone. Therefore, paragraph 
S4.1. 1.43(b) and Figure 15 have been revised to 
accomplish this. Heretofore, such allowances were 
placed in Figure 15, however for regulatory con- 
sistency, such allowances and restrictions should be 
placed in the text as other requirements are. 
Paragraph S4. 1.1. 43(b) now includes such 
requirements and Figure 15 does not. This arrange- 
ment of photometric and construction specifications 
assures that the entire assembly will be properly 
aimed in service if a mechanical aimer is used to aim 
the LF lamp in co-aimed assembly. However, if 
optical aiming is used or if a mechanical aimer is used 
in conjunction with the UF lamp of the assembly, the 
in-service aim of the assembly may be in error. As a 
partial remedy to the possibility of using a mechanical 
aimer in conjunction with the UF lamp, a safeguard 
was originally proposed in the first NPRM for the 
Type F headlamp system. This proposal would have 
required manufacturers to provide a means of 
preventing use of the mechanical aimer on the UF 
lamp of the co-aimed assembly. However, the pro- 
posal was not included in the second NPRM because 
NHTSA tentatively concluded that without similar 
provision to prevent optical or visual aiming, only a 
portion of the problem would be addressed. Labelling 
could be provided as a guide to reduce the likelihood 
of optical aim, but the likelihood of success is 
unknown. 

There is also the question of whether or not the 
possibility of use of inappropriate aiming procedures 
in service is likely to have a significant safety impact. 
NHTSA believes that the likelihood of there being a 
significant safety impact is low. Because properly 
aimed Type F headlamps may be replaced without re- 
aim, and because the co-aim assembly will have only 
two aiming screws, NHTSA believes that these 
assemblies will usually be treated as a two beam 
headlamp is treated in that the lower beam is used for 
aiming purposes. Consequently, NHTSA will allow 
the optional use of co-aiming, using the clarified pro- 
cedure above, but will not require the prevention of 
aim of the upper beam lamp. 



PART 571; S 108-PRE 218 



Optional Auxiliary Filament in the Lower 
Beam Lamp 

Incorporation of an optional auxiliary filament in 
the Type F system was a feature of the original GM 
design, which was subsequently deleted by the 
developer. In the original rulemaking, NHTSA deter- 
mined that there were no safety reasons to mandate 
or permit its use. However, because Chrysler Cor- 
poration strongly recommended the incorporation of 
the auxiliary filament for safety purposes other than 
upper beam or lower beam use, the agency again pro- 
posed its optional inclusion. Specifically, Chrysler 
would use the auxiliary filament to increase 
conspicuity of the vehicle during daytime operation. 

Five commenters opposed the proposal while three 
were in favor of it and one, the California Highway 
Patrol, was neutral. Of the three, Chrysler suggested 
that it could be used to provide a daytime rvmning 
light. North American Phillips saw no reason to 
oppose it. American Motors commented that 
manufacturers should have the design flexibility to 
use such a filament. GM offered arguments against 
the auxiliary filament similarly to those previously 
offered, stating that the auxiliary filament would 
reduce lamp life and reliability, reduce bulb reliability, 
cause a filament shadow during lower beam use, and 
increase cost. Commenters recommended against it 
on the basis that it was premature to permit such a 
feature which could adversely affect headlamp per- 
formance when the need and specifications for 
daytime running lights remain to be determined. Ad- 
ditionally, because the auxiliary filament would be 
unregulated in both design and performance, 
manufacturers could choose to use the filament for 
other functions where optics must be controlled, such 
as for use as driving or fog lamps, with the possibility 
of a resulting optical prescription for the lens that 
would be in conflict with that necessary for a 
headlamp. The inappropriate prescription would 
thereby compromise lower beam performance. 
Should lamps with auxiliary filaments be produced, 
the headlamps would be physically interchangeable, 
but would not be functionally interchangeable. In ad- 
dition this would result in proliferation without ac- 
companying advantages for the public. Accordingly, 
NHTSA has not adopted the proposal to allow a third 
type of Type F headlamp, one incorporating an 
auxiliary filament. 

Standardization ofSAE References 
Under Standard No. 108, Type F headlamps and 
those incorporating standardized replaceable light 
sources are designed to meet the requirements of 



SAE J579c, December 1978, but original equipment 
sealed beam headlamps must conform to SAE J579c, 
December 1974. For regulatory clarity, NHTSA pro- 
posed that the December 1978 version be the sole ver- 
sion incorporated by reference. Similarly it proposed 
that a standardized reference to SAE J580 be 
adopted. The changes between the earlier and later 
versions of the two SAE standards were discussed in 
detail in the notice of proposed rulemaking and their 
effect deemed non-substantive. These changes have 
been adopted, there being no negative comments 
submitted. 

In consideration of the foregoing. Motor Vehicle 
Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps Reflective Devices, 
and Associated Equipment, is amended as follows: 

The authority citation for Part 571 is revised to 
read as follows: 

Authority: 15 U.S.C. 1392, 1401, 1403, 1407; 
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50. 

1. Subparagraph (b) of paragraph S4.1.1.43 is 
revised to read: 

(b) The photometric requirements of Figure 15. A 
re-aim tolerance of ± V4 degree is allowed for any test 
point on the Type LF lamp when tested alone, and 
such a tolerance is not allowed for the type UF lamp 
when tested alone. For the test point 10U-90U, 
measurement shall be from the normally exposed sur- 
face of the lens face. 

2. A new paragraph S4.1.1.46 is added to read: 

• • * • • 

S4.1.1.46 Type F headlamps may be mounted on 
common or parallel seating and aiming planes to per- 
mit simultaneous aiming of both headlamps provided 
that or when tested with any conforming Type UF 
and LF headlamps according to paragraph S8, (a) the 
assembly (consisting of the Type UF and LF 
headlamps, mounting rings, the aiming/ seating 
rings, and aim adjustment mechanism), shall be 
designed to conform to the test point values of Figure 
15. (b) There shall be no provision for adjustment bet- 
ween the common or parallel aiming and seating 
planes of the two lamps. 

3. A new paragraph S4.5.12 is added to read: 

***** 

S4.5.1 2 On a motor vehicle equipped with a Type F 
headlighting system, the lower beam headlamps 
(Type LF) may be wired to remain permanently ac- 
tivated when the upper beam headlamps (Type UF) 
are activated. 



PART 571; S 108-PRE 219 



4. A new paragraph S8 is added to read: 
S8 Photometry Test tor Simultaneous Aim, Type F 
Headlamps. The assembly shall be located on a 
goniometer placed not less than 60 feet (18.3 m) from 
the photometer. The LF unit shall be aimed 
mechanically by centering the unit on the photometer 
axis and aligning the aiming plane of the lens perpen- 
dicular to the photometer axis. Then the assembly 



shall be moved in a plane parallel to the established 
aiming plane of the LF headlamp until the UF 
headlamp is centered on the photometer axis. 
Photometry measurements of the UF photometry 
unit shall be completed using the aiming plane so 
established. A re-aim tolerance of ±V4 degree is 
allowed for any test point. 
5. Figure 15 is revised as follows: 



Figure 15 
Photometric Test Point Values 



Upper Beam 


Lower Beam 


Test Points 


cd. 


cd. 


Test Points 


cd. 


cd. 


(kg 


max. 


min. 


deg 


max. 


min. 


2U-V 


— 


1,500 


10U-90U 


125 


— 


1U-3R and 3L 


— 


5,000 


IU-I-V2L to L 


700 


— 


H-V 


70,000 


40,000 


V2U-I-V2L to L 


1,000 


— 








V2D-I-V2L to L 


3,000 


— 








I-V2U-IR to R 


1,400 


— 


H-3R and 3L 


— 


15,000 








H-6R and 6L 


— 


5,000 


V2U-IR to 3R 


2,700 


— 


H-9R and 9L 


— 


3,000 


V2D-I-V2R 


20,000 


10,000 


H-12R and 12L 


— 


1,500 


1D-6L 


— 


1,000 








I-V2D-2R 


— 


15,000 


I-V2D-V 


— 


5,000 


I-V2D-9L and 9R 


— 


1,000 


1-V2D-9R and 9L 


— 


2,000 


2D-15L and 15R 


— 


850 


2-V2D-V 


— 


2,500 


4D-4R 


12,500 


— 


2-V2D-I2R and 12L 


— 


1,000 








4D-V 


5,000 


— 


4D-V 


7,000 


— 








H-V 


5,000 


— 



6. Paragraphs S4.1. 1.13(b), S4.1.1.21, S4.1.1.33, 
S5.1 and Tables I and III (under the right hand 
column "Applicable SAE standard or recommended 
practice" parallel to the item "Headlamps") are 
amended by changing "December 1974" to 
"December 1978." 

7. (a) In Tables I and III the right hand columns 
"Applicable SAE standard or recommended 
practice" are amended by adding the wording "(See 
S5 for subreferenced SAE materials)". 



(b) Tables I and III (under the right hand column 
"Applicable SAE standard or recommended 
practice" parallel to the item "Headlamps") are 
amended by changing "J580b February 1974" to 
"J580 AUG 79". 

Issued on March 13, 1986. 

Diane K. Steed 
Administrator 

51 F.R. 9455 
March 19, 1986 



PART 571; S 108-PRE 220 



PREAMBLE TO AN AMENDMENT TO 
FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 



108 



Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment 
(Docket No. 81-11; Notice 17)* 



ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: Changes in Replaceable Light Source 
Specifications. This notice amends Safety Standard 
No. 108 to modify the specifications for the standard- 
ized replaceable light source. This will allow a 
manufacturer to determine the diameter of the glass 
capsule, while specifying the location of the black cap 
for assuring the interchangeability of the standard- 
ized light source in different lamp designs to achieve 
the required photometric performance. The amend- 
ment relieves certain design restrictions currently in 
effect, and achieves greater interchangeability for the 
light source. A notice of proposed rulemaking was 
published on September 18, 1985. 

DATES: The effective date for the amendment to 
Figure 3-2 is November 3, 1986. The effective date 
for the remaining amendments is May 7, 1986. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On September 18, 
1985, NHTSA proposed certain modifications to the 
standardized replaceable light source which is 
specified by Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 
for use in headlamps (50 FR 37882). The purpose of 
the proposal was to allow a manufacturer more flex- 
ibility in specifying the diameter of the glass capsule 
of the light source, and to revise the method for speci- 
fying the location of the black cap. 

The proposal incorporated the following elements: 
a revised "interchangeability drawing" for the 
headlamp bulb assembly's halogen capsule (Figure 
3-5) with certain angles and dimensions different than 
those presently specified; a revised lumen test 
necessitated by testing the light source with the black 
cap in place, requiring amendments to paragraph 
S4.1.1.38 (the test being currently performed without 
the black cap); finally, a modification in the allowable 
tolerances of the light source with a view towards a 
more accurate orientation of beam pattern, while per- 
mitting greater headlamp styling freedom. Here 



NHTSA proposed tolerances petitioned for by General 
Motors, and NHTSA's own alternative values. 

Comments were received on the proposal from vehi- 
cle manufacturers (Chrysler Corporation, American 
Motors Corporation, SAAB-Scania of North America, 
Volkswagen of America, (^neral Motors Corporation, 
Ford Motor Company), lighting equipment manufac- 
turers (Koito Manufacturing Co., GTE/Sylvania, 
General Electric Company, North American Philips 
Lighting Corporation), the Department of California 
Highway Patrol, and the SAE Replaceable Headlamp 
Bulb Task Force. The proposal was supported, with 
suggested modifications. 

The purpose of the rulemaking with respect to the 
location of the black cap was to relieve a burden to 
manufacturers of having to build a light source with 
a narrowly specified glass cap diameter. To ac- 
complish this, the location of the black cap and that 
of the undistorted glass must be specified in a man- 
ner which would be tolerant of changes in diameter 
while assuring that photometric performance was 
maintained. This led to the angular method used in 
the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for specifying 
these locations. The method of dimensioning used the 
light source base as a reference because this would 
provide the easiest measurement reference for deter- 
mining compliance of these parameters, and measure- 
ments could be more easily performed using vernier 
calipers rather than the more difficult optical 
comparator. 

The proposed method of specifying the black cap 
location assumed that it would be installed on the 
light source after the capsule was installed on the 
base, but as commenters pointed out, this is not 
always the way that a light source is manufactured. 
Sylvania, for example, first installs the black cap on 
the capsule, then determines for what application the 
completed capsule will be used. Thus, the method 
NHTSA proposed would impose a burden of tolerance 
stackup which has the potential of creating non- 
compliances or possible photometric errors if the 



PART 571; S108 - PRE 221 
* Inadvertently published in the Federal Register as Notice 18. 



assembly procedure remained unchanged. Therefore, 
Sylvania and other commenters recommended using 
the actual location of the lower beam filament as a 
reference. NHTSA considers this a reasonable alter- 
native, and in view of the fact that some manufac- 
turers are already producing light sources in this 
fashion, the agency is amending Figure 3-5 to accom- 
modate this comment. 

Commenters also suggested that NHTSA adopt 
other changes for Figm-e 3-5 which would help clarify 
it, namely the revisions put forth by the SAE 
Replaceable Headlamp Bulb Task Force. These in- 
volve deletion of certain dimensions and redrawing 
of others, and changes in Notes. NHTSA has made 
appropriate modifications in line with the comments. 

The September 1985 notice proposed alternative 
tolerances for the lower beam filament, one based 
upon a set of tolerances petitioned for by General 
Motors, and the other developed by NHTSA. Com- 
menters objected to both alternatives, and recom- 
mended the tolerances developed by the SAE Task 
Force. These tolerances are based upon those that in- 
dustry believes are consistently achievable with 
today's state-of-the-art in production machinery and 
quality assurance equipment. Ford and VW com- 
mented that the SAE tolerances would help improve 
the maintenance of beam pattern after bulb replace- 
ment. Tighter filament tolerances will also permit 
greater freedom in headlamp styling and manufac- 
ture. Judging by the comments received on the notice, 
there is little support for retaining the existing 
tolerances, and little support for either the GM or 
NHTSA alternative tolerances that were proposed. 
The SAE tolerances lie between the current ones and 
those proposed; since this represents a consensus 
among those who chose to comment, NHTSA has 
adopted it, and is amending the dimensions in Figure 
3-2 appropriately. The new tolerances for the lower 
beam ahead/behind are plus or minus 0.010 inch, and 
plus or minus 0.015 inch for up/down and left/right. 
For the upper beam, the tolerance is 0.025 inch for 
ahead/behind and up/down and 0.032 inch for 
left/right. 

Comments about lumen values generally accorded 
with the proposal, to test with the black cap on, rather 
than without. SAAB argued that the values were too 
low while the California Highway Patrol thought that 
there was a large disparity in making the conversion 
from values without a black cap to those with a cap. 
NHTSA believes that a number of factors must be 
considered when making such a conversion. The black 
cap blocks off light to the front of the capsule and 
causes a di'op in light output, but the filament still 
emits the same amount of light as it did without the 



cap. The location of the cap may vary plus or minus 
1 mm. Filament variances plus cap location will cause 
a greater variation of light output from a capped bulb, 
than one that has no cap, where only the filament 
variances affect light output. These two factors cause 
a drop in measured light output from capped bulbs 
and cause the tolerance to increase. However, the 
light source is still the same one that had previously 
been tested without the black cap, and is still designed 
to conform to the other requirements so that the 
headlamp will perform in accordance with the re- 
quirements of the standard, and thus the lumen 
values have been adopted as proposed. 

Koito requested that a more detailed specification 
be provided for the "opaque white colored cover" that 
is to be used in the lumen test (S4.1.1.38(bX7)). The 
agency has added this clarification to the language 
otherwise proposed and adopted: "This cover shall be 
used to eliminate the likelihood of incorrect lumen 
measurement that would occur should the reflectance 
of the light source base and electrical connector be 
low." 

The agency had proposed that the amendments be 
effective upon publication of the final rule in the 
Federal Register. Ford commented that this would be 
impracticable in that it would not allow enough time 
for both vehicle and light source manufacturers to 
prepare for building complying hardware, and it 
asked for lead time of one year. No other vehicle or 
light source manufacturer requested such an exten- 
sion, and the agency has concluded that no need has 
been shown for a delay of the nature Ford requested. 
Therefore, amendments that reduce an industry 
burden (those pertaining to capsule diameter, black 
cap placement, and revised lumen values) are made 
effective on the publication date of the final rule, as 
proposed. However, the amendment that places 
tighter tolerances on the filaments, and thus which 
has the potential of increasing an industry burden, 
will become effective six months following the 
publication of the rule. 

Except for the amendment to Figm-e 3-2, the amend- 
ments are effective upon publication of the final rule 
in the Federal Register. Because the rule would 
relieve a restriction and create no additional burden, 
it is hereby found for good cause shown that an effec- 
tive date earlier than 180 days after issuance of the 
final rule is in the public interest. The amendment 
to Figure 3-2 is effective November 3, 1986. 

NHTSA has considered this rule and has deter- 
mined that it is not major within the meaning of 
Executive Order 12291 "Federal Regulation" or 
significant under Department of Transportation reg- 
ulatory policies and procedures, and that neither a 



PART 571; S108 - PRE 222 



regulatory impact analysis nor a full regulatory eval- 
uation is required. While the rule does impose minor 
additional requirements and costs, it also permits 
manufacturers greater flexibility in the styling and 
design of headlighting systems. 

In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR 571.108, 
Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, 
Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, is 
amended as follows: 

1. The authority citation for Part 571 continues to 
read as follows: 

AUTHORITY: 15 U.S.C. 1392, 1401, 1403, 1407; 
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50. 
§571.108 [Amended] 

2. The first sentence of paragraph (b) of paragraph 
S4. 1.1.38 is revised to read: 

(b) The standardized replaceable light source shall 
meet the requirements in paragraphs (bXl) through 
(bX7) of this section. 

3. In paragraph fbXl) of paragraph S4. 1.1.38 the 
tabular portion of the general specifications is 
amended as follows: 



Lower 

beam 



Upper 
beam 



FIGURE 3-2 

INTERCHANGEABILITY DRAWING 

HEADLAMP BULB ASSEMBLY 

[Dimensional specifications for Figure 3-1] 



DIMENSION 



F 
H 

K:Lower beam 
Upper beam 



M 

N 



O 
P 
R 



U 
V 

w 

X 

AC 
AD 
AE 
AF 
AH 
AM 
AN 



INCHES 

(0.085 to 0.083) 
0.002 either 
side CL 
0.906 
0.079 

1.752+/-0.010 
CL to be within 
+/-0.025 of CL 
of lower beam 
0.974 

(1.335 to 1.331) 
0.002 either 
side CL 
0.517+/-0.020 
1.673 

(1.126 to 1.122) 
0.002 either 
side CL 
1.181 
0.413 
0.128 
0.189 

0.045+/-0.015 
0.091+/-0.025 
0.047+/-0.015 
0.094+/- 0.032 
0.356 
0.415 
0.673 



MILLIMETERS 

(2.15 to 2.10) 
0.05 either 
side CL 
23.00 
2.00 

44.50+/-0.25 
CL to be within 
+/-0.64 ofCL 
of lower beam 
24.75 

(33.90) to (33.80) 
0.05 either 
side CL 
13.13+/-0.50 
42.50 

(28.60 to 28.50) 
0.05 either 
side CL 
30.00 
10.50 
3.25 
4.80 

1.15+/-0.38 
2.30+/-0.64 
1.20+/-0.38 
2.40+/-0.81 
9.05 
10.54 
17.10 



Lumens (with black cap 
at 12.8V design 
voltage) 700+/- 15% 1200+/- 15% 



4. A new paragraph (hX7) is added to paragraph 
84. 1.1. 38 to read: 

(bX7) Lumens shall be measured in accordance with 
the Illuminating Society of North America, LM-45: 
lES Approved Method for Electrical and Photometric 
Measurements of General Service Incandescent 
Filaments Lamps (April 1980), and with that elec- 
trical connector and light source base (except for the 
portion normally located within the interior of a lamp 
housing) shrouded with an opaque white colored 
cover. This cover shall be used to eliminate the 
likelihood of incorrect lumen measurement that 
would occur should the reflectance of the light source 
base and electrical connector be low. 

5. Figure 3-2 is revised as follows: 



PART 571; S108 - PRE 223 



6. Figure 3-5 is revised as follows: 



Cl of Undistorled 
Portion of Actual Glass 
Capsule 



Capsule and Supports 
Shall not Exceed This 
Envelope 

Plane Which Passes Through 
the Center of the Actual Lower 
Beam Filament 

Actual Capsule Dia 
(To Be Established 
By Manufacturer) 



F = XX. XX ± 1.0 MM /^ 
G = XX. XX M M Minimum /JK 
H = 24.5 M M Maximum 

J = 70.0 M M Maximum 



Cl of Light 
Source Base 




/\ Glass Capsule Periphery Shall be Optically Distortion Free Between the Planes 
Perpendicular to the Centerline at Points P and R. 

/2\ Diameter H " Shall be Concentric with the Centerline 
of the Light Source Base 

/3\ Exact Values of F and G Shall be Determined by Using the Following: 
F = (N'2) Tan 38 

G = (N/2) Tan 43 

A\ Entire Radius and Distorted Glass Shall be Covered to the Plane 

Passing Through Point "P' , Perpendicular to the Glass Capsule Centerline. 

Figure 3-5. Halogen Capsule 

PART 571; S108 - PRE 224 



7. Figure 3-6 is deleted. 



Issued on April 29, 1986 



(M^ ^Jh 



Diane K. Steed 
Administrator 

51 F.R. 16847 
May 7, 1986 



PART 571; S108 - PRE 225-226 



PREAMBLE TO AN AMENDMENT TO 
FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 108 

Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment 
(Docket No. 81-11; Notice 18)* 



ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This notice adopts two new tj^ies of stand- 
ardized replaceable light sources to be used in 
replaceable bulb headlighting systems on motor 
vehicles. In a two light source system developed by 
General Motors Corporation ("GM") one source pro- 
vides the upper beam, and the other, the lower beam. 
The new light sources will be known as "HB3" and 
"HB4". The present standardized replaceable light 
source is now designated "HBl". 

The rule is based upon a notice published January 
7, 1986, that proposed dimensional changes differing 
from those originally proposed on May 13, 1985. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 2, 1986. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On May 13, 1985, 
NHTSA published a proposal to allow new types of 
standardized replaceable light sources in motor vehi- 
cle headlamps (50 FR 19961). Two of these light 
sources were designed by GM, one intended to pro- 
vide the upper beam, which would be denominated 
HB3, and the other to provide the lower beam, to be 
denominated HB4. After the close of the comment 
period, GM submitted new drawings and specifica- 
tions for the light sources which it felt met the needs 
of the industry as a result of its efforts with the SAE 
Replaceable Bulb Task Force. Later it submitted fur- 
ther updates of specifications. 

Accordingly, on January 7, 1986, NHTSA published 
a second NPRM on this subject, proposing a revision 
in dimensional specifications (Figures 19 and 20) in- 
corporating the GM changes, which included the pro- 
vision for a seal (51 FR 641). NHTSA is now amend- 
ing Standard No. 108 to add the HB3 and HB4 light 
sources in accordance with the previous proposals. 

In the May 1985 notice, NHTSA proposed that the 
light sources meet the photometric requirements of 
Type F sealed beam headlighting systems. With 
reference to the internal heat tests of S6.7, no flash 
rate is currently specified for a turn signal that is in- 
corporated into a headlamp housing. NHTSA, believ- 
ing that there could be excessive buildup of heat from 



a steady burning signal, proposed to include a 
flashing turn signal at the test condition of 90 flashes 
per minute with a 75 plus or minus 2% current "on- 
time" performance. Because HB3 and HB4 have fila- 
ment locations different from that of the current 
standardized replaceable light source (to be known 
from now on as "HBl"), NHTSA proposed changing 
the bulb deflection test to accommodate these dif- 
ferences. The point of deflection would be at a specific 
measured distance from a reference plane instead of 
being located by reference to the filament. This 
change was also proposed for the HBl with the ac- 
tual deflection point remaining the same. Addition- 
ally, for HB3 and HB4, the direction of force applica- 
tion was specified to be radially inward anywhere in 
the perpendicular plane located at the application 
point. 

In its proposal, NHTSA also sought comment on 
whether there were any safety reasons, such as ex- 
cessive glare, excessive candela, or insufficient il- 
lumination to prohibit intermixes of the HBl with 
HB3 and HB4 and conversely to seek appropriate 
photometric and other specifications which would be 
required to permit such intermix, should commenters 
deem that course of action desirable. 

The proposals in the second notice published in 
January 1986 were confined to dimensional changes, 
and the addition of a protective seal for HB3 and HB4 
meeting the performance criteria proposed. 

Comments were received on both proposals from 
major vehicle and lighting equipment manufacturers. 
With regard to the photometry of HB3 and HB4, 
Chrysler Corporation and Ford Motor Company urged 
that only one photometric performance requirement 
be implemented for all headlamp systems. Because 
three performance requirements currently exist; Type 
F, SAE J579a, and SAE J579c, this suggestion can- 
not be implemented at this time. Accordingly, 
NHTSA has proceeded to adopt the Type F photo- 
metrics for the HB3 and HB4, a proposal that was 
supported by Sylvania GTE, Department of Califor- 
nia Highway Patrol, and GM among others. Further, 
the comments generally supported intermixing of 



PART 571; S108 - PRE 227 
*Inadvertently published in the Federal Register as Notice 17. 



light sources, given that headlamp systems are all re- 
quired to meet minimum photometric requirements, 
and that NHTSA has proposed labeling of the 
headlamp lens to denote the type of light source used. 
Ford commented that intermixing will permit de- 
signers to optimize lighting for glare and seeing 
distance. On the other hand, GTE Sylvania and 
General Electric were opposed to intermixing until 
further study of the likely effects can be completed. 
Sylvania suggested that the SAE Lighting Commit- 
tee should resolve the questions of intermixing and 
the related simplification of photometries to achieve 
a single performance level. NHTSA believes that as 
long as photometric performance is met, and the lens 
identifies the light source, there is no reason to pro- 
hibit intermixing, and is amending the standard to 
allow it provided that the system meets Type F 
photometries. 

The proposed bulb deflection test specified that the 
direction of the application of force be radially inward 
anywhere in the perpendicular plane located at the 
application point. All those who commented recom- 
mended a revised procedure that would exercise the 
deflection resistance performance while simplifying 
the test. The basis for the recommendations is the 
SAE Replaceable Headlamp Bulb Task Force work 
on SAE XJ1496, Recommended Practice for Head- 
lamp Light Sources. This states essentially that the 
deflection force should be applied radially at four 
equally spaced intervals at the light center length of 
the lower beam filament (or upper if there is only an 
upper beam filament), beginning at the weakest axis 
of the bulb crimp. NHTSA agrees with this recom- 
mendation because it is a simpler method of achiev- 
ing the same goal, and the standard is amended ac- 
cordingly. Comments also supported the proposed test 
conditions for turn signals in replaceable bulb head- 
lamps (amended in Item 4, 50 FR 21056) and the 
standard has been amended accordingly. 

Regarding the specification changes proposed in 
January 1986, all comments except those received 
from Hella and Sylvania supported the proposal. 
Hella requested ECE tolerances, but would accept the 
recommendation by the SAE Bulb Task Force. 
Sylvania in essence requested a capsule and support 
envelope with a diameter of at least 19.68 mm for the 
HB3, because of limitations of its manufacturing 
equipment, and NHTSA is making this change to ac- 
commodate this concern. However, it necessitates the 
addition of a note requiring the capsule and supports 
to provide for insertion into the lamp without interfer- 
ing with the lamp's key. The numbers suggested by 
the SAE Headlamp Bulb Task Force have been added 
to Figure 20. The larger diameters could create a 
burden for headlamp manufacturers but not light 



source manufacturers such as Sylvania because space 
will be removed that was previously reserved for in- 
ternal lamp parts; however, the agency knows of no 
instance in which lamp design has been so far final- 
ized that this would occur. The NPRM of May 1985 
contained a note to the Figures: "Bulb envelope must 
not exceed this area". This was changed to "Bulb 
envelope must not exceed this volume" in the 
January 1986 NPRM. To achieve consistency in the 
standard and to more clearly state the note, NHTSA 
is adopting the language used in a similar note for 
the HBl light source: "Capsule and supports shall not 
exceed this envelope." 

The commenters discussed other issues of interest 
as well. Both the Federal Highway Administration 
(FHWA) and Volkswagen addressed the need to 
assure adequate illumination of overhead signs, and 
other highway indicators. The FHWA suggested that 
new minimum test point values be added to the 
photometric performance requirements for all 
headlamps. While this is beyond the scope of the pre- 
sent rulemaking, it will remain under consideration. 

Hella recommended that a "standardized bulb" 
rather than "any" bulb be used for compliance 
testing, specifically the bulb set forth in the SAE 
XJ1496 document. NHTSA continues to believe that 
any light source which is available to the consumer 
in the market place should be used for compliance 
testing, rather than one specially prepared for 
laboratory use. 

Some commenters felt that industry terms, such as 
"9004", should be used to designate light sources 
rather than NHTSA's terminology, such as "HBl". 
Other commenters felt that the terminology should 
be applied in a sequence different from that proposed, 
such as the 9005 being HB5 and 9006 being HB6. The 
agency does not deem either of these suggestions 
desirable. In the first case, should a light source 
meeting HBl specifications be developed that uses 
less power to achieve the same performance, the HBl 
nomenclature would allow it to be used in any 
headlamp designed to use the original light source. 
But the updated replacement would probably have 
some other trade number, 9008 for example, to in- 
dicate its lower power consumption. This difference 
in trade numbers could be confusing to consumers 
seeking to replace the light source. Therefore, 
NHTSA intends to continue Standard No. 108's 
nomenclature for headlighting systems. Industry, of 
course, is free to assign any trade numbers it wishes, 
but is required to certify that the light source is 
designed to conform to the requirements of Standard 
No. 108. The same logic has been applied to replace- 
able headlamp light sources. In the second case, on 
the application of the NHTSA terminology, NHTSA 



PART 571; S108 - PRE 228 



proposed the HB number sequence based on the order 
in which hght sources were received for incorporation 
into the Standard. Additionally, because the Euro- 
pean H-4 light source could be different from the pro- 
posed U.S. version of that light source and not have 
the same uses in the U.S. market as it has tradition- 
ally had, a distinctly different nomenclature is 
deemed necessary. Therefore, NHTSA is implement- 
ing the nomenclature as proposed for the HBl, HB3 
and HB4. 

With respect to "designed to conform", some com- 
menters noted that the language proposed for 
S4.1.1.39 contemplated light sources that "conform" 
as contrasted with the requirement in S4.1.1.36 that 
headlamps other than sealed beam be equipped with 
light sources "designed to conform". To remove this 
inconsistency with paragraph S4.1.1.36, NHTSA has 
adopted the "design to conform" language in 
S4. 1.1.39. 

The comments reflected a wide range of opinion 
about the need for labelling of headlamp lenses with 
information such as light source type, beam type, and 
photometric performance designation. Lamp 
manufacturers are concerned about the adverse ef- 
fects on headlamp performance, especially if the loca- 
tion of the labelling is a specified one. NHTSA has 
concluded that motor vehicle safety requires iden- 
tification of the light source, and the proper function 
of a headlamp (upper or lower beam) when two 
headlamp types are used on a vehicle. It is not 
necessary to provide photometric performance infor- 
mation when the lens identifies the light source. 
Replacement of a light source with one of the same 
type will assure equivalent and compatible lighting 
performance. However, there is no compelling reason 
to specify that any information be located at the lens 
center. NHTSA has decided to leave placement of the 
information to the discretion of the manufacturer, as 
long as the information is placed on the lens area in 
front of, and used by the light source it is designating. 

ETL Testing Laboratories asked for three clarifica- 
tions of the proposal. The language in proposed 
S4. 1.1. 39(f) and (h) regarding "low pressure side" was 
unclear. The "low pressure side" is the connector side 
of the HB3 or HB4 light source base. This test of the 
sealing mechanism does not apply to the HBl. The 
second point of confusion was the extent of the 
photometry test of S6.7.2. Except for a headlamp with 
a single HBl light source, the photometry test is in- 
tended to be a complete testing of all test points for 
the beam or beams produced by the lamp. Finally, in 
S6.7.2, a statement was requested on the conditions 
of time lapse or temperature stabilization occurring 
after the high temperature test and before the photo- 
metry test. NHTSA replies that there should be suf- 



ficient time for the temperature of the lamp to 
stabilize to room ambient temperature. 

NHTSA has considered this rule and has deter- 
mined that it is not major within the meaning of 
Executive Order No. 12291 "Federal Regulation" or 
significant under Department of Transportation regu- 
latory policies and procedures, and that neither a 
regulatory impact analysis nor a full regulatory 
evaluation is required. However, a regulatory evalua- 
tion has been prepared and placed in the public 
docket. Since use of the two light sources is optional, 
the rule would not impose additional costs or re- 
quirements but would permit manufacturers greater 
flexibility in the use of headlighting systems. 

NHTSA has analyzed this rule for the purposes of 
the National Environmental Policy Act. The rule may 
have a small positive effect on the human environ- 
ment since the weight and quantity of materials used 
in the manufacture of headlamps would be reduced. 

The agency has also considered the impacts of this 
rule in relation to the Regulatory Flexibility Act. I 
certify that this rule will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small en- 
tities. Accordingly, no regulatory flexibility analysis 
has been prepared. Manufacturers of motor vehicles 
and headlamps, those affected by the rule, are 
generally not small businesses within the meaning 
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. Finally, small 
organizations and governmental jurisdictions would 
not be significantly affected since the price of new 
vehicles, headlamps, and aimer adjusters will be 
minimally impacted. 

Because of the necessity for vehicle, headlamp, and 
replaceable light source manufacturers to plan pro- 
duction and distribution on an orderly basis, it is 
hereby found that an effective date earlier than 180 
days after issuance of the final rule is in the public 
interest. 

The engineer and lawyer primarily responsible for 
this rule are Richard Van Iderstine and Taylor 
Vinson, respectively. 
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571 

Imports, Motor vehicle safety. Motor vehicles, 
Rubber and rubber products, Tires. 
Part 571 - [AMENDED] 

In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR Part 571 
and 571.108, Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, 
Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment 
is amended as follows: 

The authority citation for Part 571 continues to read 
as follows: 

Authority: 15 U.S.C. 1392, 1401, 1403, 1407; delega- 
tion of authority at 49 CFR 1.50. 
§571.108 [Amended] 



PART 571; S108 - PRE 229 



1. The definition of "Standardized replaceable light 
source" in S3 Definitions is revised to read: 

"Standardized replaceable light source" means an 
assembly of a capsule, base, and terminals that meets 
the requirements of S4. 1.1.39. 

2. In paragraph S4.1.1.36, paragraph (aXD is revis- 
ed to read: 

(aXD Each replaceable bulb headlamp shall include 
components which are designed to conform to the ap- 
plicable specifications of paragraphs S4.1.1.37, 
S4. 1.1.38 and S4. 1.1.39. 

3. The first sentence of Paragraph (bX2) of S4.1.1.36 
is revised to read: 

(2) Section 3.1 - Test Voltage and Section 3.5 - 
Photometric Design Requirements, excluding Tables 
1 and 2 for headlamps equipped with Type HB3, Type 
HB4, Types HBl and HB3, or Types HBl and HB4, 
and excluding Table 2 of SAE J579c Sealed Beam 
Headlamp Units for Motor Vehicles December 1978 
for headlamps in systems with only Type HBl. 

4. In Paragraphs (dXD, (dX3), (dX5), (dX6XA), 
(dX6XB), and (dX7) of paragraph S4. 1.1.36, the words 
"of SAE J579c Sealed Beam Headlamp Units for 
Motor Vehicles, December 1978" are removed and the 
words "applicable to the headlamp system under test" 
substituted. 

5. A new paragraph (e) is added to S4. 1.1.36, before 
(eXl) to read: "For a headlamp equipped with one or 
two Type HBl light sources the following require- 
ments apply." 

6. A new paragraph (f) is added to S4.1.1.36 to read: 
"For headlamp systems equipped with Type HB3 

and HB4, HBl and HB3, or HBl and HB4 light 
sources, the following requirements apply:" 

(1) There shall be no mechanism that allows adjust- 
ment of an individual light source, or adjustment of 
reflector aim on a headlamp with two light sources. 

(2) Lower beam photometries shall be provided by 
filaments with a minimum average design life of not 
less than 320 hours. 

(3) The lower and upper beams of a headlamp 
system consisting of two lamps, each containing two 
light sources (type HB3 and HB4, or type HBl with 
HB3 or HB4) shall be provided only as follows: 

(i) The lower beam shall be produced in one of the 
following ways: 

(A) By the outboard light source (or the uppermost 
if arranged vertically) or single light source, designed 
to conform to the lower beam requirements of Figure 
17; or, 

(B) By both light sources, designed to conform to 
the lower beam requirements of Figure 17. 

(ii) The upper beam shall be provided in one of the 
following ways: 



(A) By the inboard light source (or the lower one 
if arranged vertically) or single light source, designed 
to conform to the upper beam requirements of Figure 
17; or 

(B) By both light sources, designed to conform to 
the upper beam requirements of Figure 17. 

(4) The lower and upper beams of a headlamp 
system consisting of four lamps, using HB3 and HB4, 
HBl and HB3, or HBl and HB4 light sources, each 
containing only a single light source, shall be pro- 
vided only as follows: 

(i) The lower beam shall be produced by the out- 
board lamp (or upper one if arranged vertically), 
designed to conform to the lower beam requirements 
of Figure 15. The lens of each such headlamp shall 
be permanently marked with the letter "L". 

(ii) The upper beam shall be produced by the in- 
board lamp (or lower one if arranged vertically), 
designed to conform to the upper beam requirements 
of Figure 15. The lens of each such headlamp shall 
be permanently marked with the letter "U". 

(5) For replaceable bulb headlamps, a +/- % degi-ee 
realm tolerance is permitted for the test points of 
Figures 15 and 17. The test point 10U-90U shall be 
measured from the normally exposed surface of the 
lens face. 

7. Paragraph S4.1.1.37 is revised to read: 

54.1.1.37 Each lens-reflector unit manufactured as 
replacement equipment for a replaceable bulb head- 
lamp system shall be designed to conform to the 
requirement of S4.1.1.36 when any standardized 
replaceable light somxe appropriate for such unit is 
inserted in it. 

8. Section 4.1.1.39 is removed. S4. 1.1.40 is 
redesignated S4. 1.1.38 and revised as follows. 

54.1.1.38 The lens of each replaceable bulb 
headlamp and the base of each standardized replace- 
able light source shall be marked as follows: 

(a) With the symbol "DOT" horizontally or verti- 
cally which shall constitute certification that the 
headlamp or light source conforms to all applicable 
Federal motor vehicle safety standards. 

(b) The base of each Type HB3 and HB4 light source 
shall also be marked by its manufacturer or importer 
with its HB Type Designation and the name or 
trademark registered with the U.S. Patent Office of 
the manufacturer and importer (if applicable). 

(c) The lens of each replaceable bulb headlamp 
using HB3 or HB4 light sources, or HBl light sources 
in conjunction with HB3 or HB4 light sources within 
a headlamp system on a motor vehicle shall per- 
manently display the Type Designation(s) for that 
standardized replaceable light source on the lens in 
front of each light source. 



PART 571; S108 - PRE 230 



9. Paragraph S4.1.1.38 is redesignated S4.1.1.39 
and revised as follows: 

S4.1.1.39 Each standardized replaceable light 
source shall be designed to conform to the following 
requirements: 

(a) A type HBl light source shall be designed to con- 
form to the dimensions specified in Figure 3 and shall 
incorporate a silicone 0-ring. A Type HB3 light source 
shall be designed to conform to the dimensions 
specified in Figure 19. A Type HB4 light source shall 
be designed to conform to the dimensions specified in 
Figure 20. 

(b) Each standardized replaceable light source shall 
be designed to conform to the following general 
specifications: 



Specification 




Lower Beam 


Upper Beam 


Maximum power, watts 








HBl 




50 


70 


HB3 




.... 


70 


rtB4 




60 




Luminous flux, lumens: 








HBl 




700±15% 


1200+15% 


HB3 






1700112% 


HB4 




1,000+15% 




Minimum average design 


life, 






hours: all 




320 


150 



(c) The standardized replaceable light source fila- 
ment(s) shall be subject to seasoning before measure- 
ment of maximum power and luminous flux. 

(d) Measurement of maximum power and luminous 
flux shall be made with the direct current test voltage 
regulated within one quarter of one percent. The test 
voltage shall be design voltage, 12. 8v. The measure- 
ment of luminous flux for the HBl shall be in accord- 
ance with the Illuminating Society of North America, 
LM-45: lES Approved Method for Electrical and 
Photometric Measurements of General Service In- 
candescent Filament Lamps (April 1980), shall be 
made with the black cap installed on HBl and HB4, 
and shall be made with the electrical connector and 
light source base shrouded with an opaque white col- 
ored cover, except for the portion normally located 
within the interior of the lamp housing. The measure- 
ment of luminous flux for the HB3 and HB4 shall be 
with the base covered with a white cover shown in 
Figures 19-1 and 20-1. The white covers are used to 
eliminate the likelihood of incon-ect lumen measure- 
ment that will occur should the reflectance of the light 
source base and electrical connector be low. 

(e) Measurement of minimum average design life 
shall be made at 14. Ov for all light sources. Testing 
is conducted in a completed headlamp assembly, or 
equivalent, placed in the attitude in which the 
assembly is to be installed on a motor vehicle. 



(f) The capsule, lead wires and/or terminals on each 
Type HBl, Type HB3 and Type HB4 light source shall 
be installed in the base so as to provide an airtight 
seal. Such a seal exists on Type HB3 and Type HB4 
when no air bubbles shall appear on the low pressure 
(connector) side after the light source has been im- 
mersed in water for one minute while inserted in a 
cylindi-ical aperture of 0.796 + 0.004 in. (20.22 + 0.10 
mm) (Type HB3) or 0.875 ± 0.004 in. (22.22 + 0.1 mm) 
(Type HB4) and subjected to a minimum air pressure 
of 69kPa (10 P.S.I.G.) on the glass capsule side. 

(g) After the force deflection test conducted in ac- 
cordance with S7, the permanent deflection of the 
glass envelope shall not exceed 0.005 in. (0.13 mm) 
in the direction of the applied force. 

(h) A general tolerance shall apply to Figure 3 as 
follows: +/— 0.004 in. (0.10 mm) to all linear dimen- 
sions and -f/— 1°0' to all angular dimensions except 
for referenced dimensions and unless otherwise 
specified. 

10. Paragraph S4.5.8 is amended by adding the 
following as a second sentence: 

S4.5.8***On a motor vehicle equipped with a 
headlighting system comprising four replaceable bulb 
headlamps designed to conform to the photometry of 
Figure 15, the lamps marked "L" may be wired to 
remain permanently activated when the lamps 
marked "U" are activated. 

11. Paragraph S4.5.9 is revised to read: 

S4.5.9 The wiring harness or connector assembly 
of a replaceable bulb headlamp with two identical 
standardized replaceable light sources or a four-lamp 
replaceable bulb headlamp system which uses iden- 
tical light sources in all four lamps shall be designed 
so that the filaments not intended to be used with the 
lens prescription in front of such filament shall not 
be illuminated. 

12. Paragraph S6.1 is revised is to read: 

S6.1 Photometry. A replaceable bulb headlamp shall 
be tested according to paragraph S3. 5, Photometric 
Design Requirements, and Table 1 of SAE Standard 
J579c Sealed Beam Headlamp Units for Motor 
Vehicles, Dec. 1978, or by Figure 15 or 17 of Standard 
108, as applicable, after the tests specified in S6.2, 
S6.4, S6.6, S6.7.1, S6.7.2 and S6.8 

13. Paragraphs S6.7 and S6.8 are revised to read: 
S6.7 Temperature and internal heat tests. A 

headlamp with one or more standardized replaceable 
light sources shall be tested according to S6.7.1 and 
S6.7.2. Tests shall be made with all filaments lighted 
at design voltage that are intended to be used 
simultaneously in the headlamp and which in com- 
bination draw the highest total wattage. These in- 
clude but are not limited to filaments used for turn 



PART 571; S108 - PRE 231 



signal lamps, fog lamps, parking lamps, and head- 
lamp lower beams lighted with upper beams when the 
wiring harness is so connected on the vehicle. If a turn 
signal is included in the headlamp assembly, it shall 
be operated at 90 flashes a minute with a 75-l-/-2% 
current "on time". If the lamp produces both the 
upper and lower beam, it shall be tested in both the 
upper beam mode and the lower beam mode under 
the conditions above described, except for a headlamp 
with a single HBl light source. 

56.7.1 Temperature cycle. A headlamp mounted on 
a headlamp test fixture shall be subjected to 10 com- 
plete consecutive cycles having the thermal cycle pro- 
file shown in Figure 6. Dui'ing the hot cycle, the lamp 
shall be energized commencing at point "A" of Figure 
6 and de-energized at point "B". Separate or single 
test chambers may be used to generate the environ- 
ment of Figure 6. All drain holes, breathing devices 
or other openings or vents of the headlamp shall be 
in their normal operating positions. 

56.7.2 Internal heat test. 

(a) The headlamp lens surface that would normally 
be exposed to road dirt shall be uniformly sprayed 
with any appropriate mixture of dust and water or 
other appropriate materials to reduce the photometric 
output at the H-V test point of the upper beam (or the 
1/2D-1 1/2R test point of the lower beam as ap- 
propriate) to 25 + /- 2% of the output originally 
measured in the photometric test performed under 
S4.1. 1.36(b). A headlamp with a single HBl light 
source shall be tested on the upper beam only. Such 
reduction shall be determined under the same condi- 
tions as that of the original photometric 
measurement. 

Cb) After the determination has been made that the 
photometric output of the lamp has been reduced as 
specified in S6.7.2(a), the lamp and its mounting hard- 
ware shall be mounted in an environmental chamber 
in a manner similar to that indicated in Figure 7, 
"Dirt/Ambient Test Setup". The headlamp shall be 
soaked for one hour at a temperature of 95+7-0 
degi-ees F (35 + 4-0 degrees C) and then the lamp 
shall be energized according to S6.7 for one hour in 
a still air condition, allowing the temperature to rise 
from the soak temperature. 

(c) The lamp shall be returned to a room ambient 
temperature of 73 + 7-0 degrees F (23 + 4-0 
degrees C) and a relative humidity of 40+/- 10% and 
allowed to stabilize to the room ambient term- 
perature. The lens shall then be cleaned. 

S6.8 Humidity. The headlamp mounted on a test fix- 
ture shall be placed in a controlled environment con- 
sisting of a temperature of 100+7-0°F(38+4-0°C) 
with a relative humidity of not less than 90%. All 
drain holes, breathing devices, and other designed 



openings shall be in their normal operating positions. 
The headlamp shall be subjected to 20 consecutive 
6-hour test cycles. In each cycle, it shall be energized 
at design voltage with the highest combination of fila- 
ment wattages that are intended to be used, including 
a turn signal flashing at 90 flashes a minute with a 
75±2% current "on-time, if so equipped, and then de- 
energized for 5 hours. After completion of the last 
cycle, the lamp shall be soaked for 1 hour at 
73+7-0°F (20+4-0°C) and relative humidity of 
40+10% before it is removed for photometric testing. 
The headlamp shall be tested for photometries at 
10+1 minutes following completion of the humidity 
test. 

14. Section 87 is revised to read: 

S7 Deflection test for standardized replaceable light 
sources. 

(a) Type HBl light source. With the light source 
rigidly mounted in a fixture in a manner indicated 
in Figure 8, apply a force of 4.0+0.1 pounds 
(17.8+0.4N) at a distance "A" from the reference 
plane perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the 
glass capsule and parallel to the smallest dimension 
of the pressed glass capsule seal. The force applica- 
tion shall be applied using a rod with a hard rubber 
tip with a minimum spherical radius of 0.039 in 
(1 mm). The bulb deflection shall be measured at the 
glass capsule surface at 180 degrees opposite to the 
force application. 

(b) Type HB3 and HB4 light sources. The deflection 
test is conducted according to paragraph (a), except 
that the force shall be applied radially to the surface 
of the glass capsule in four locations in a plane par- 
allel to the reference plane and spaced at a distance 
"A" from that plane. These force applications shall 
be spaced 90 degrees apart starting at the point 
perpendicular to the smallest dimension of the 
pressed seal of the glass capsule. 

15. In Tables II and IV, Column 2 for the 
Headlamps is revised to read: 

Headlamps. . . On the front, each headlamp pro- 
viding the upper beam, at the same 
height, 1 on each side of the vertical 
centerline, each headlamp providing 
the lower beam, at the same height, 
1 on each side of the vertical center- 
line, as far apart as practicable. If a 
single standardized replaceable light 
source is used to provide the power 
beam in a headlamp with two stand- 
ardized replaceable light sources, it 
shall be the farthest one from the ver- 
tical centerline. 



PART 571; S108 - PRE 232 



16. The title of Figure 3 is revised to read 
"Specifications for the Type HBl Standardized 
Replaceable Light Source." 



17. Figure 8 is revised as follows: 

18. New Figures 17, 19 and 20 are added as follows: 



Issued on April 28, 1986 




^^JjlJ 




^jaJ^ 



Diane K. Steed 
Administrator 

51 F.R. 16325 
May 2, 1986 



PART 571; S108 - PRE 233-234 



Force Applied to 
Glass in Direction 
of Arrow 



Smallest Dimension 

of the Pressed Glass Seal of the 

Glass Capsule 




Point of 

Defection 

Measurement 



Reference Plane 



Bulb Base Rigidly Mounted 
to Fixture 



Standardized Replaceable 
Light Source Type 



Dimension 
"A" 



HB1 



44.50 ± 0.38 MM (1.75 ± 0.015 In) 



HB3 

HB4 



31.50 ± 0.20 MM (1.24 ± 0.008 In) 
31.50 ± 0.20 MM (1.24 ± 0.008 In) 



Figure 8 - Bulb Deflection Test 



PART 571; 8108 - PRE 235-236 



A 




GA 



GV 



A A 

i 



-GC 



Line A 



^ 



/ 



-^GO 



GW 






NA, t 

GK GG 



r I 



-•GD 



GX 



CJ 0.05 MM (0.002 In) 



Line A 




'^ r See Figure 
19-2 



Figure 19 - Specifications for the Type HB3 Standardized 
Replaceable Light Source 



PART 571; S108 - PRE 237 



Dimension 

GA 

GB 

GC 

GD 

GE 

GF 

GG 

GH 

Gl 

GJ 

GK 

GL 

GM 

GN 

GO 

GP 

GQ 

GR 

GS 

GT 

GU 
GV 
GW 
GX 



Inches 



Millimetres 



A 
A 

A 
A 
A 

A 
A 

A 
A 
A 



0.591 Max/ 0.217 Min 
0.236 

45° 
0.079 
1.09 
0.165 
0.346 
0.433 
0.055 

0.217 ± 0.006 
0.06 

0.775 Dia 
2.165 
0.093 
0.157 

45° Chamfer 
0.039 

0.787 ± 0.002 Dia 
0.138 

„ cov +0.004 p,. 
°^Q^ -0.000 ^'^ 

0.079 
0.138 
0.209 Min 
0.378 

Dimensions Shown Are Maximum-May Be Smaller 

Bulbs Must Be Equipped With a Seal The Bulb-Seal Assembly Must Withstand a Minimum 
of 69kPA (10 P S I G ) When the Assembly Is Inserted into a Cylindrical Aperture of 
22 22 ± 10 MM (0 875 ± 004 IN) 

See Figure 20-5 

Diameters Must Be Concentric Within 20 MM (0 008 IN) 

Glass Bulb Periphery Must Be Optically Distortion Free Axially Within the Included Angles 
About Point B 

Key and Keyway Are Optional Construction Keyway Required for Aftermarket Only 

Measured at Terminal Base Terminals Must Be Perpendicular to Base and Parallel 
Within ± 1 5° 

Diameters Must Be Concentric Within 20 MM (0 008 IN) 

Absolute Dimension, No Tolerance 

Glass Capsule and Supports Shall Not Exceed This Envelope 



15.00 Max/ 5.50 Min 
6.00' 

45° 
2.00 
27.8 
4.20 
8.80 
11.00 
1.40 

5.50 ± 0.15 
1.5 

19.68 Dia 
55.00 
2.36 
4.00 

45° Chamfer 
1.00 

22.00 ± 0.05 Dia 
3.50 

2.00 
3.5 

5.30 Min 
9.60 



Tolerances Unless Otherwise Specified 




Inches 


Millimetres 




2 Place Decimals ± 02 


1 Place Decimals ± 


5 


3 Place Decimals ± 010 


2 Place Decimals ± 


30 


Angular ± 1° 


Angular ± 1° 





Figure 19 - Specifications for the Type HB3 Standardized 
Replaceable Light Source (CONT.) 

PART 571; S108 - PRE 238 



Plane B 



Line A 

•CL of Undistorted 
Portion of Glass 
Tubing 



Line A 




Plane B 



Typical Bulb 
Construction 



Point B 




Undistorted 
Glass 



Side View 



Top View 



Dimension 

lA 
IB 



Point B Is Intersection of Plane B and Centerline of 
Undistorted Glass Tubing 

Inches 

45° Min 
52° Min 



Millimetres 

45° Min 
52° Min 



Opening for Bulb 



Two Piece Fiat Whiite Construction 
(With Snap-On Lid) 




Opening for Connector Connector Cover Used in Luminous Flux Test 



Figure 19-1 - Specifications for the Type HB3 Standardized 
Replaceable Light Source 



PART 571; 8108 - PRE 239-240 



View W: from Bulb End 
HN- 




A A 



HD 2 PLC 
HE 2 PLC 



Optional Construction (View W: from Bulb End) 
HQ 3 PLC 



HO 3 PLC 



Plane A 
HP 3 PLC 



Dimensions 

HA 

HB 

HC 

HD 

HE 

HF 

HG 

HH 

HI 

HJ 

HK 

HL 

HM 

HN 

HO 

HP 

HQ 



R 3 PLC 





2 PLC 



HF HG 
HH /sK 



View X: from Connector End 



Tolerances Unless Otherwise Specified 




Inches 


Millimetres 




2 Place Decimals ± 0.02 


1 Place Decimals ± 


0.5 


3 Place Decimals ± 0.010 


2 Place Decimals ± 


0.30 


Angular ± 1° 


Angular ± 1° 





Inches 



0.787 ±0.002 Die 


120°±0°30 


0.866 Dia 


0.394 


0.118 


0.079 


0.315 


1.181 Dia 


1.417 Dia 


3° 


30° 


0.157 


0.35 


0.079 ±0.004 


0.20 


0.030 


1 20° Typ 



Millimetres 

20.00 ±0.05 Dia 
120°±0°30 
22.00 Dia 
10.00 

3.00 

2.00 

8.00 
30.00 Dia 
36 00 Dia 
3° 
30° 
4.00 
8.9 

2.00 ±0.10 
5.0 
0.75 
1 20° Typ 



Figure 19-2 - Specifications for the Type I-IB3 Standardized 
Replaceable Light Source 



PART 571; S108 - PRE 241-242 




KM Constant KJ /N Constant 

.KO Constant 



KH 2 PLC 



Section T-T (from Fig 1 9) 




Dimensions 

KA 

KB 

KC 

KD 

KE 

KF 

KG 

KH 

Kl 

KJ 

KK 

KL 

KM 

KN 

KO 

KP 

KQ 

KR 

KS 



Inches 

0.384 

0.315 

0.171 

0.055 

0.343 

0.242 ±0.006 

0.484 

0.748 

0.368 ±0.006 

0.736 

0.439 ±0.006 

0.878 

0.059 

0.03 R 

0.016 R 

0.110 ±0.004 

0.024 

0.033 ±0.001 

0.039 Min 



Millimetres 

9.75 

8.00 

4.35 

1.40 

8.70 

6.15 ±0.15 

12.30 

19.00 

9.35 ±0.15 

18.70 

11.15 ±0.15 

22.30 

1.50 

0.8 R 

0.40 R 

2.8 ±0.10 

0.60 

0.83 ±0.03 

1.00 Min 



Tolerances Unless Otherwise Specified 


Inches 


Millimetres 


2 Place Decimals ± 0.02 


1 Place Decimals ±0.5 


3 Place Decimals ± 0.010 


2 Place Decimals ± 0.30 


Angular ± 1° 


Angular ± 1° 



Figure 19-3 - Specifications for the Type I-IB3 Standardized 
Replaceable Light Source 



PART 571; 8108 - PRE 243-244 




Dimensions 


Inches 


Millimetres 


JA 


0.796 ±0.004 Dia 


20.22±0.10 Dia 


JB 


172-'°°^° 
^^''^ -0.000 


4 -56 "^°^° 
^■^^ -0.00 


JC 


0.067 ±0.004 
+0.004 


1.70 ±0.10 
+0.10 


JD 


0.352 ^^„„ 
-0.000 


S^^ -0.00 


JE 


0.236 Min 


6.00 Min 



Figure 19-4 - Specifications for the Type HB3 Standardized 
Replaceable Light Source Socket (in Reflector) 



PART 571; S108 - PRE 245-246 




o 
O 

c 

E 

CD 



0) 
0) 

E 

TO 
Q 



CO 

CD 

E 



a; 
< 

c 

o 

sz 
CO 

CO 

c 
g 
w 

c 

0) 



ro Q .E 



■o 

N 



CO 

TO 
C 
CO 

^^ 

ui 

CO 

m 

X 
Q. 0) 

0) o 

(0 (D 
U V 

:;= u 

0) Q. 
Q. 0) 



in 



PART 571; S108 - PRE 247-248 




AA 



AS 



Line A, 



CO 
View in 
Direction of 
Arrow 

See Figure 
20-2 



-A 
A 



fUne A 



/Z/ 0.05 MM(0.002 In) 



AR 




r L 



-^At 3 PLC 

R 



10 




R 



IJ 



S" 



I 



l_'r 



iA 



R 



V 

AJ 



"T~ See Figure 
20-2 



•AN 



Al 



-^AQ 



Figure 20 - Specifications for the Type HB4 Standardized 
Replaceable Light Source 



PART 571; 8108 - PRE 249-250 



Dimension 

AA 

AB 

AC 

AD 

AE 

AF 

AG 

AH 

Al 

AJ 

AK 

AL 

AM 

AN 

AO 

AP 

AQ 

AR 

AS 
AT 
AU 
AV 
AW 



Inches 



Millimetres 



A 

A 

A 
A 
A 

A 
A 

A 
A 
A 



0.591 Max/ 0.217 Min 
0.236 

45" 
0.079 
1.09 
0.165 
0.346 
0.433 
0.055 

0.217 ± 0.006 
0.06 

0.780 Dia 
2.165 
0.093 
0.157 

45° Chamfer 
0.039 



0.766 



+0.004 
-0.000 



Dia 



15.00 Max / 5.50 Min 
6.00 

45" 
2.00 
27.8 
4.20 
8.80 
11.00 
1.40 

5.50 ± 0.15 
1.5 

19.81 Dia 
55.00 
2.36 
4.00 

45° Chamfer 
1.00 

22.00 ± 0.05 Dia 

2.00 

3.5 

5.30 Min 

9.60 



0.866 ± 0.002 Dia 

0.079 

0.138 

0.209 Min 

0.378 

Dimensions Shown Are Maximum-May Be Smaller 

Bulbs Must Be Equipped With a Seal. The Bulb-Seal Assembly Must Withstand a Minimum 
of 69kPA (10 PS I G.) When the Assembly Is Inserted into a Cylindrical Aperture of 
22 22 ± 10 MM (0 875 ± 0.004 IN). 

See Figure 20-5 

Diameters Must Be Concentric Within 0.20 MM (0.008 IN). 

Glass Bulb Periphery Must Be Optically Distortion Free Axially Within the Included Angles 
About Point B. 

Key and Keyway Are Optional Construction. Keyway Required for Aftermarket Only. 

Measured at Terminal Base. Terminals Must Be Perpendicular to Base and Parallel 
Within ±1.5°. 

Diameters Must Be Concentric Within 0.20 MM (0 008 IN) 

Absolute Dimension. No Tolerance 

Glass Capsule and Supports Shall Not Exceed This Envelope ' 



Tolerances Unless Otherwise Specified 



Inches 

2 Place Decimals ± 02 

3 Place Decimals ± 010 

Angular ± 1° 



Millimetres 

1 Place Decimals ±05 

2 Place Decimals ± 0.30 

Angular ± 1° 



Figure 20 - Specifications for the Type I-IB4 Standardized 
Replaceable Light Source (CONT.) 

PART 571; S108 - PRE 251-252 



CB- 



Plane B 



A 



Line A 



-CL of Undistorted 
Portion of Glass 
Tubing 



Typical Bulb 
Construction 



Point B 




Side View 



Black Opaque 
Coating. 



Entire R 
Must Be 
Covered 



Line A 




Undistorted 
Glass 



Top View 



Point B Is Intersection of Plane B and Centerline of 
Undistorted Glass Tubing 



Dimension 

CA 
CB 
CC 
CD 



Inches 

45° ± 5° 

0.030 ± 0.020 

50° Min 

52° Min 



Millimetres 


45° 


± 5° 


0.75 


± 0.50 


50° 


Min 


52° 


Min 



Opening for Bulb 



Two Piece Flat White Construction 
(With Snap-On Lid) 




X 

Opening for Connector 



Connector Cover Used in Luminous Flux Test 



Figure 20-1 - Specifications for the Type HB4 Standardized 
Replaceable Light Source 



PART 571; 8108 - PRE 253-254 



View Y; from Bulb End 
BN- 




BD 2 PLC 
BE 2 PLC 



Optional Construction (View Y: from Bulb End) 
BQ 3 PLC 



BO 3 PLC 




Plane A 
BP 3 PLC 



Dimensions 

BA 

BB 

BC 

BD 

BE 

BF 

BG 

BH 

Bl 

BJ 

BK 

BL 

BM 

BN 

BO 

BP 

BQ 




View Z: from Connector End 



R 3 PLC 



Tolerances Unless Othierwise Specified 


Inches 


Millimetres 


2 Place Decimals ±0.02 


1 Place Decimals ± 0.5 


3 Place Decimals ± 0.010 


2 Place Decimals ± 0.30 


Angular ± 1° 


Angular ± 1° 



Inches 



0.866 ±0.002 Dia 


120°±0°30 


0.866 Dia 


0.394 


0.118 


0.079 


0.315 


1.181 Dia 


1.417 Dia 


3° 


30° 


0.157 


0.39 


0.079 ±0.004 


0.20 


0.030 


1 20° Typ 



Millimetres 


22.00 ±0.05 Dia 


120°±0°30 


22.00 Dia 


10.00 


3.00 


2.00 


8.00 


30.00 Dia 


36.00 Dia 


3° 


30° 


4.00 


9.9 


2.00 ±0.10 


5.0 


0.75 


1 20° Typ 



Figure 20-2 



Specifications for tlie Type HB4 Standardized 
Replaceable Light Source 

PART 571; S108 - PRE 255-256 




EM Constant 



EN Constant 
EO Constant 




Section S-S (from Fig 20) 



A 

Section R-R (From Fig 20) 



Dimensions 

EA 

EB 

EC 

ED 

EE 

EF 

EG 

EH 

El 

EJ 

EK 

EL 

EM 

EN 

EO 

EP 

EQ 

ER 

ES 



Inches 

0.384 

0.315 

0.171 

0.079 

0.343 

0.242 ±0.006 

0.484 

0.748 

0.368 ±0.006 

0.736 

0.439 ±0.006 

0.878 

0.059 

0.03 R 

0.016 R 

0.110 ±0.004 

0.024 

0.033 ±0.001 

0.039 Min 



Millimetres 

9.75 

8.00 

4.35 

2.00 

8.70 

6.15 ±0.15 

12.30 

19.00 

9.35 ±0 15 

18.70 

1 1.15 ±0.15 

22.30 

1.50 

0.8 R 

0.40 R 

2.8 ±0.10) 

0.60 

0.83 ±0.03 

1.00 Min 



Tolerances Unless Otherwise Specified 




Inches 


Millimetres 




2 Place Decimals ± 0.02 


1 Place Decimals 


± 0.5 


3 Place Decimals ± 0.010 


2 Place Decimals 


± 0.30 


Angular ± 1° 


Angular ± 1° 





Figure 20-3 - Specifications for the Type HB4 Standardized 
Replaceable Light Source 

PART 571; S108 - PRE 257-258 




Dimensions 


Inches 


DA 


0.875 ±0.004 Dia 


DB 


^ ,^^ +0.010 


DC 


0.067 ±0.004 


DD 


^ o^^ +0 004 


DE 


0.236 Min 



Section V-V 


Millimetres 


22.22 ±0.10 Dia 


4 36 +° 30 


1.70 ±0.10 


9 95+°^° 
^■^^ -0,00 


6.00 Min 



Figure 20-4 - Specifications for the Type HB4 Standardized 
Replaceable Light Source Socket (in Reflector) 



PART 571; S108 - PRE 259-260 



CQ 



0) 




f— 







<) 


m 


i_ 




r 




^^ 




m 


LL 


t«_ 




b 


fl) 


o 

c 
o 






C 
CO 


CO 
o 




in 


Q. 


o 


V 






_l 


o 


n 




Tfi 


CO 


fO 


ro 


x 





LU 


< 


< 


u 

p 


c 


fl) 





CO 


o 


r 


^ 







Q- 




c 

0) 


CO 



o 

1- 


E 


c 


JZ 


,^J 


fl) 


<n 


c 


n 


Q) 


(Tl 





w 


5 


b 






m 


x: 





(J) 




H 


m 


LU 


LL 



<^ CD 



^<1 



<^ " 



\ 



CD 



c 

CL 



CD 








C 

Q. 



CJ) 
CM 



o 



CNJ 

o 



<1 



<ls ^ 



o 

00 






c 

_CD 
Q. 





"cD 

CO 
Q. 

m 

CD 



c 

TO 
CL 





E 

_2 

o 
> 

c . 




^ ^ ^ 



CD 



CO 
N 



CO 

c 

CO 



"D c/3 
13 


> en 








ca 

X 


ntain 
Dil fy/l 


ithin 
he 1 








c^" 


^^ 








0) 


,„ "" 


*; 








Q. 0) 


CD -^ 


_J 5 








^ o 


t;; o 








1- ^ 


Must 
urn o 


"lis 

= o 

O C 

^ ,9 








15 


^"Z 








51, 


CM i2 


0*-" 








H. Li- 


x: -D 
•^ m 








(A ^ 


en 








C 


1 Volt 
of th 


Last Turn o 
to Plane A 








atio 
able 


Desigr 
he End 






CO 





E 
1 


ecific 
place 


lody at 
fied. T 


of the 
dicular 




CO 

CO 

rn 


o 
o 


Q. 0) 


m 5 


■c 9 




cz 




U) 


— 


C 













O Q. 

o w 


LU Q. 
^ 


^ 


£ 

CO 


< 


o 

CM 


ntire 
e as 




o 



LL 

"o 


o 


a> 

3 


LU i- 





1— 


O) 


O) 


<^ -i 

^ o 


- 


h 

CO 






CO 

c 


iZ 


1- > 


: _J 


L) 


b 
CO 

b 

II 

Q 


o 

CO 

c 


E 

b 





PART 571; S108 - PRE 261-262 



PREAMBLE TO AN AMENDMENT TO FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY 

STANDARD NO. 108 

Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment 

(Docket No. 81-11; Notice 14) 



ACTION: Response to petition for reconsideration; 
correction. 

SUMMARY: This notice responds to a petition for 
reconsideration of the May 22, 1985, notice amend- 
ing Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, 
and Associated Equipment, to allow motor vehicles 
to be equipped with replaceable bulb headlamp 
systems consisting of either four lamps with single 
standardized replaceable light sources, or two lamps 
each with two such light sources. 

The petition was filed by Ford Motor Company. 
Petitioner asked for the deletion of paragraph S4.5.8 
which prohibits simultaneous activation of the upper 
and lower beams of a four lamp system each con- 
taining a single standardized replaceable light 
source, claiming that the agency has shown no safety 
need for it. The petition is denied because of the 
potential that combined beam use could result in 
more than 75,000 candela emission at the H-V test 
point on each side of the vehicle and more than 5,000 
candela at the 4D-V test point. This could cause ex- 
cess glare down the road to oncoming drivers and 
excess glare in the foreground. 

Petitioner also called attention to duplicative 
language in paragraph S4.1.1.36(aX2). Its petition 
for correction is granted and the standard is amend- 
ed to remove that language. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 2, 1986. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On May 22, 

1985, NHTSA published a notice amending 49 CFR 
571.108, Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, 
Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equip- 
ment (50 FR 21052). The amendment allowed motor 
vehicles to be equipped with replaceable bulb 
headlamp systems consisting of either four lamps, 
each with a single standardized replaceable light 
source, or two lamps each with two such light 
sources. Included in the amendment was the prohibi- 
tion against simultaneous activation (except momen- 



tarily for temporary signalling use) of the upper and 
lower beams of a headlighting system consisting of 
four lamps each with its own single light source. 

On June 21, 1985, Ford Motor Company peti- 
tioned for reconsideration of the prohibition, claim- 
ing it was an "unwarranted new design restrictive 
requirement." Citing the agency's rationale for the 
prohibition, as expressed in the preamble to the 
notice (the photometric requirements of SAE J579c 
do not contemplate such use). Ford argued that "no 
data were presented or referenced by NHTSA in 
support of this claim, nor have any data been 
presented to suggest that activating the lower beam 
simultaneously with the upper beam presents any 
risk to motor vehicle safety." In Ford's opinion, 
"Such use of combined beams may well improve the 
overall upper beam performance and therefore con- 
tribute to motor vehicle safety (indeed such use is 
contemplated by NHTSA in its rulemaking for Type 
F sealed beam headlamps)." Ford observed that "As 
no vehicle manufacturer, to our knowledge, has ever 
marketed a vehicle in which the upper and lower 
beam could be combined, except as part of a "flash 
to pass" feature, there is no practical evidence that 
such a system would harm motor vehicle safety." 
Ford concluded by suggesting "that if the agency 
wishes to continue rulemaking in this area, the ap- 
propriate course of action would be to issue a notice 
of proposed rulemaking which would provide both 
detailed reasons and demonstrate a safety need for 
such a prohibition." 

NHTSA believes that the rulemaking history of 
paragraph S4.5.8 and the discussion in Notice 3 of 
Docket 84-04, May 13, 1985, for simultaneous beam 
use in the Type F system, demonstrate the need for 
such a prohibition and has offered ample opportunity 
for public comment. As NHTSA noted in the pream- 
ble to the final rule (p. 21054) "A second issue of 
concern to commenters was the proposed prohibi- 
tion against simultaneous use of upper and lower 
beams in a four-lamp system if the J579c photo 



PART 571; S 108-PRE 263 



metrics were allowed, as contrasted with the lack 
of such a prohibition for systems with Type F 
photometries." 

Under Standard No. 108, the maximum candela 
at the H-V test point of the upper beam cannot ex- 
ceed 75,000 on each side of the front of the vehicle. 
Beyond that, as the agency has noted, benefits at- 
tributable to increased light output rapidly diminish, 
and the possibility of glare greatly increases. There 
are also restrictions on the maximum intensity of 
upper beam light permitted at the 4D-V test point. 

The primary reason for not permitting 
simultaneous use of upper and lower beams in four- 
lamp, four-light source systems is the potential for 
such use to result in situations where the photometric 
limits are exceeded at these test points. These situa- 
tions may arise because of the way headlamp imits 
are defined in the standard, and because of the way 
photometric requirements apply to these units. 

The photometric tables, in this case from SAE 
J579c, pertain to a headlamp unit, not to individual 
filaments or bulbs that may be a part of the unit. 
Standard No. 108 applies only Table 1 to replaceable 
bulb headlamps, which provides for a single lower 
beam, and/or a single upper beam to be produced 
by a headlamp unit. Thus, in the case of the two- 
lamp, four-light source system, the standard does 
not place any limitations on how the photometric re- 
quirements for each lamp are to be met as long as 
the lamp provides a lower beam and an upper beam. 
Manufacturers are allowed to design lamps to pro- 
duce the required light patterns with one of the light 
sources or both of the light sources present in the 
headlamp because they have complete control over 
lamp design. Manufacturers can determine how 
much each light source, reflector, and lens compo- 
nent within each headlamp unit will contribute in 
producing the required lower beam light and the up- 
per beam light. 

Such is not the case in the four-lamp, four-light 
source system. Here, each lamp must be designed 
to conform with either the lower beam requirements 
or the upper beam requirements of SAE J579c, 
Table 1. Thus, it is conceivable that when a lower 
beam lamp from one manufacturer is activated 
simultaneously with an upper beam lamp from 
another manufacturer, as could occur with replace- 
ment lamps, the combined output might exceed the 
photometric maximums allowed at certain critical 
test point locations such as H-V, or 4D-V. 

Some vehicle manufacturers might volunarily 
equip their products with four lamp systems where 



the combined output would not exceed maximum 
limits, but consumers would have no guarantee of 
this. The potential for mismatch would be even 
greater when the vehicle owner is required to pur- 
chase a replacement lamp in the aftermarket. For 
lamp units designed to conform with SAE J579c, the 
only way to prevent the possibility of excessive and 
potentially unsafe combinations of lamp output, is 
to prohibit their simultaneous use. 

Ford also called the agency's attention to the 
amendment to S4.1.1.36(aX2) effectuated on May 22 
which added five sentences (not four as the amen- 
datory language mistakenly stated). The first new 
sentence is redundant with the unamended existing 
first sentence to the section. Ford recommended 
removing the second sentence that was added on 
May 22, i.e., "The lens of each replaceable bulb 
headlamp shall have three pads which meet the re- 
quirements of Figure 4." 

The agency agrees that there is a redundancy, and 
has granted Ford's petition; but it has chosen to 
remove the existing first sentence, rather than the 
second sentence added on May 22. The text to be 
deleted describes the aiming pads, the aiming plane, 
and the method for determining the settings for the 
adjustable aiming device locating plate. It states that 
the aiming pads form the aiming plane which is no 
longer true. The pads are used for positioning the 
aimer legs. The aimer legs, having been set to the 
correct setting as engraved on the lamp lens, deter- 
mine the aiming plane. 

In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR 571.108, 
Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, 
Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, is 
amended as follows: 

The first two sentences of paragraph (aX2) of 
paragraph S4.1.1.36 are removed, and the follow- 
ing sentence is added to read: 

(aX2) The lens of each replaceable bulb headlamp 
shall have three pads which meet the requirements 
of Figure 4, Dimensional Specifications for Loca- 
tion of Aiming Pads on Replaceable Bulb Headlamp 
Units. 

Issued on June 27, 1986. 



Barry Felrice 
Associate Administrator 
for Rulemaking 
51 F.R. 24152 
July 2, 1986 



PART 571; S 108-PRE 264 



PREAMBLE TO AN AMENDMENT TO 
FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 

Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment 
(Docliet No. 85-10; Notice 2) 



108 



ACTION: Final Rule. 

SUMMARY: This notice makes nonsubstantive 
amendments to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 
Standard No. 108 to remove original equipment 
requirements that are no longer in effect and to 
clarify that most of those requirements may still be 
met by equipment manufactured to replace such 
original equipment, to adopt a common 
typographical manner in referring to materials 
incorporated by reference, and to correct errors 
appearing in the Code of Federal Regulations. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: August 6, 1986. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The agency has 
recently reviewed 49 CFR 571.108 Motor Vehicle 
Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective 
Devices, and Associated Equipment as published in 
the Code of Federal Regulations, revised as of 
October 1, 1985. In so doing, it noted three subject 
areas where nonsubstantive amendments could be 
made to clarify and simplify the standard, to 
remove inconsistencies in titles of SAE of other 
materials incorportaed by reference, and to 
correct minor errors. 

Clarification of Current Coverage 

Standard No. 108 contains certain requirements 
that applied to vehicles manufactured between cer- 
tain dates in the past. For example, Paragraph 
S4.1.1.6 permitted stop lamps on vehicles 
manufactured between January 1, 1973, and 
September 1, 1978, to be designed to conform to 
SAE Standard J586b Stop Lamps, as an exception 
to the requirement for SAE J586c stop lamps in 
Table III. Although stop lamps meeting J586b may 
no longer be used as original equipment on 
passenger cars, their manufacture as replacements 
for original equipment J586b stop lamps remains 
permissible. Therefore, the agency is revising 
S4.1.1.6 in part, from "Each stop lamp on any 
motor vehicle manufactured between January 1, 
1973, and September 1, 1978, may be designed to 



conform to SAE Standard J586b. . . " to "Each 
stop lamp manufactured to replace a stop lamp 
designed to conform to SAE Standard J586b Stop 
Lamps, June 1966, may also be designed to con- 
form to SAE Standard J586b. . ." Similar changes 
are made to paragraphs S4.1.1.7, S4. 1.1.28, 
S4.1.1.29, and S4.1.1.35. Paragraph S4.1.1.19 and 
20 apply to lamps manufactured on or after 
January 1, 1974; there appears to be no need to 
retain the effective date on this requirement, nor 
for the effective date of the lens marking require- 
ment in paragraph S4.1.1.21, and the second 
paragraph of its subsection (f). Paragraph S4. 1.2(a) 
applies to plastic materials manufactured before 
January 1, 1976, and may be deleted. Succeeding 
subparagraphs are redesignated, and references to 
J576b are deleted. 

Consistency in SAE, OSHA, and ASTM References. 
Titles of SAE, OSHA, and ASTM materials in- 
corporated by reference appear at some place in 
the standard in quotation marks, and at other 
places in italics. The agency has concluded that the 
style of reference should be consistent, and that 
italics are preferable to quotation marks because 
the presence of incorporated materials will be 
more readily apparent to the reader. Changes from 
quotation marks to italics are made in the follow- 
ing paragraphs: S. 4. 1.1.1, S4. 1.1.4, S4.1.1.8, 
S4.1. 1.13(a), (b), and (c), S4.1.1.19, S4.1.1.20, 
S.4.1.1.22, S4.1.1.25, S4.1. 1.36(b)(1), (2), and (3), 
S4.1.1.36(dXl), (3), (5), (6XA) and (B), and (7), 
S4.1.2 (ASTM reference), S.4. 1.4(a) and (b), 
S4.2.1, S4.3.1.5, S4.3.1.7, S4.5.1, S4.5.6, S6.1, 
S6. 4(b)(1) (OSHA reference), S6.5 (ASTM 
reference), S6.6 (ASTM reference), and 
S6.7.2(b)(2) and (c)(2) (Title of Figure 7). 

Typographical Errors 

Typographical errors appear in the following sec- 
tions and will be corrected: S4. 1.1.43(c)(2), and 
S4.4.1 (this designation is unnecessary as there is 
no longer a paragraph S4.4.2, and an appropriate 
correction is made). 



PART 571; S 108-PRE-265 



In consideration of the foregoing 49 CFR Part 
571 and 571.108 Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 
No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated 
Equipment are amended as follows: 

1. In paragraph 84. 1.1.1, paragraph S4.3.1.7, 
and paragraph S4.5.6, the words "Turn Signal 
Lamps" are changed to read "Turn Signal 
Lamps". 

2. In paragraph S4.1.1.4 the words "Sheeting 
and Tape, Reflective Non-exposed Lens, Adhesive 
Backing" are revised to read "Sheeting and Tape, 
Reflective Non-exposed Lens, Adhesive Backing", 
and the words "Reflex Reflectors" are changed to 
read "Reflex Reflectors". 

3. In paragraph S4.1.1.6 the following changes 
are made: 

(a) The first sentence is revised to read "Each 
stop lamp manufactured to replace a stop lamp 
that was designed to conform to SAE Standard 
J586b Stop Lamps, June 1966, may also be designed 
to conform to J 586b." 

(b) The third sentence is revise by inserting the 
words "manufactured for use" between the words 
"Each such lamp" and "on a passenger car". 

4. In paragraph S4.1.1.7 the following changes 
are made: 

(a) The first sentence is revised to read "Each 
turn signal lamp manufactured to replace a turn 
signal lamp that was designed to conform to SAE 
Standard J588d, Turn Signal Lamps, June 1966, 
may also be designed to conform to J588d." 

(b) The third sentence is revised by inserting the 
words "manufactured for use" between the words 
"Each such lamp" and "on a passenger car." 

(c) The last sentence is revised by inserting the 
words "manufactured for use" between the words 
"Each such lamp" and "on a multipurpose 
passenger vehicle". 

5. In paragraph S4.1.1.8 the words "Clearance, 
Side Marker, and Identification Lamps" are 
changed to "Clearance, Side Marker, and Iden- 
tification Lamps". 

6. In paragraph S4. 1.1. 13(a) the words "Dimen- 
sional Specifications for Sealed Beam Units for 
Motor Vehicles" are changed to "Dimensional 
Specifications for Sealed Beam Headlamps Units". 

7. In paragraph S4. 1.1. 13(b), paragraph 
S4.1. 1.36(b)(2), paragraph S4. 1.1. 36(d)(1), (d)(3), 
(dX5), paragraph S4.1.1.36(dX6XA), (6XB), and 
(6XC), paragraph S4.1.1.36(dX7) and paragraph 
S6.1 the words "Sealed Beam Headlamp Units for 
Motor Vehicle" are changed to "Sealed Beam 
Headlamp Units for Motor Vehicles". 



8. In paragraph S4. 1.1. 13(c) and paragraph 
S4.1.1.36(bX3), the words "Seal Beam Headlamp 
Assembly" are changed to "Sealed Beam 
Headlamp Assembly". 

9. In paragraph S4.1.1.19 (a) the words 
"manufactured on or after January 1, 1974, and" 
are deleted. 

10. In paragraph S4. 1.1.20, the words "manufac- 
tured on or after January 1, 1974" are deleted. 

11. In paragraph S.4.1.1.19 and S4.1.1.20, (b) the 
words "Lamp Bulbs and Sealed Units" are changed 
to "Lamp Bulbs and Sealed Units". 

12. In paragraph S4.1.1.21, the words "manufac- 
tured on or after July 1, 1979" are deleted. 

13. The second paragraph of S4. 1.1. 21(f) is 
deleted. 

14. In paragraph S4.1.1.22, the words "Backup 
Lamps" are changed to "Backup Lamps, February 
1968". 

15. In paragraph S4.1.1.35, the words "Backup 
Lamps" are changed to "Backup Lamps". 

16. Paragraph S4.1.1.25 is amended as follows: 

(a) The words "Dimensional Specifications for 
Sealed Beam Headlamp Units" are changed to 
"Dimensional Specifications for Sealed Beam 
Headlamps Units". 

(b) The words "142 mm x 200 mm Sealed Beam 
Headlamp Unit" are changed to "U2 mm x Sealed 
Beam Headlamp Unit". 

17. Paragraph S4.1.1.28 is revised to read: 

54.1.1.28 Each taillamp manufactured to replace 
a taillamp designed to conform to SEA Standard 
J585d Tail Lamps, August 1970, may also be 
designed to conform to J585d. 

18. Paragraph S4.1.1.29 is revised to read: 

54.1.1.29 Each turn signal lamp manufactured to 
replace a turn signal lamp (on a motorcycle) that 
was designed to conform to SAE Standard J588d, 
Turn Signal Lamps, June 1966, may also be 
designed to conform to J588d. 

19. Paragraph S4.1.1.35 is revised to read: 
S4.1.1.35 Each headlamp manufactured to 

replace a headlamp designed to conform to SAE 
Standard J580a, Sealed Beam Headlamp, June 
1966, may also be designed to conform to J580a. 

20. Paragraph S4.1.1.36(bXl) is revised to read: 
(1) Section 4.6-Photometry of SAE J575 JUN 

80 Tests for Motor Vehicle Lighting Devices and 
Components. 



PART 571; S 108-PRE-266 



21. The following changes are made to 
paragraph S4. 1.1.43: 

(a) In subparagraph (cX2), the word "amiable" is 
change to "aimable" 

(b) In subparagraph (e), the words "August 
1979" are changed to "AUG 79". 

(c) In subparagraph (eX5), the words "October 
1980" are changed to "OCT 80 Headlamp Aiming 
Device for Mechanically Aimable Sealed Beam 
Headlamp Units" 

22. In paragraph S4.1.1.44 subparagraph "(1)" is 
changed to "(a)". 

23. The following changes are made to 
paragraph S4.1.2: 

(a) Subparagraph (a) is deleted, and sub- 
paragraph (b), (c), and (d) are redesignated "(a)", 
"(b)", and "(c)" respectively. 

(b) Redesignated subparagraph (a) is revised to 
read: 

(a) Plastic lenses used for inner lenses or those 
covered by another material and not exposed 
directly to sunlight shall meet the requirements of 
paragraphs 3.4 and 4.2 of SAE J576c when con- 
vered by the outer lens or other material; 

(c) In redesignated subparagraph (b) the words 
"Haze and Luminous Transmittance of 
Transparent Plastic" are changed to "Haze and 
Luminoibs Transmittance of Transparent Plastic". 

(d) Redesignated subparagraph (c) is revised to 
read: 

(c) After the outdoor exposure test, plastic 
materials used for reflex reflectors shall meet the 
appearance requirements of paragraph 4.2.2. of 
SAE J576C. 

24. In paragraph S4. 1.4(a) and (b), and in 
paragraph S4.2.1, the words "School Bus Red 
Signal Lamps" are changed to "School Bus Red 
Signal Lamps". 

25. Paragraph S4.1.5 is revised to read: 

S4.1.5 The color in all lamps, reflective devices, 
and associated equipment to which this standard 
applies shall comply with SAE Standard J578c, 
Color Specifications for Electric Signal Lighting 
Devices, February 1977. 



26. Paragraph S4.4 Equipment combinations is 
amended by deleting the numbers "S4.4.1". 

27. The following changes are made to 
paragraph S4.5.1: 

(a) The words "Headlamp Beam Switching" are 
changed to "Headlamd Beam Switching". 

(b) The words "Semi- Automatic Headlamps 
Beam Switching Devices" are changed to "Semi- 
AutOTtiatic Headlamp Beam Switching Devices". 

28. In paragraph S6.3 the words "Tests for 
Motor Vehicle Lighting Devices and Components" 
are changed to read "Tests for Motor Vehicle 
Lighting Devices and Components". 

29. In paragraph S6.4(bXl) the words "Handling 
Storage and Use of Flammable Combustible 
Liquids" are changed to "Handling Storage and 
Use of Flammable Combiistible Liquids". 

30. S6.5(a) the words "August 1979" are revised 
to read "AUG 79 Sealed Beam Headlamp 
Assembly". 

31. In paragraph S6.5(b) the words "Method of 
Salt Spray (FOG) Testing" are changed to 
"Method of Salt Spray (FOG) Testing". 

32. In paragraph S6.6 the words "specification 
for Portland Cement" are changed to "Specifica- 
tion for Portland Cement". 

33. In paragraphs S6.7.2(aX2), (bX2), and (cX2) 
the words "Dirt- Ambient Test Setup" are revised 
to read "Dirt/Ambient Test Setup". 

34. In paragraph S6.7.2(cX3) the tolerances on 
relative humidity of '30 -i- 10%" are changed to 
"30 ± 10%". 

35. In paragraph S6.8 the tolerance of "73 ± 7 - 
°F (20 ± 4-0 °C)" are changed to "73 -f 7 - °F 
(20 -H 4 - °C)" 

36. In S4.1.1.36(bX3) the words "SAE J580 
Sealed Beam Headlamp Assembly August 1979" 
are revised to read "SAE J580 AUG 79 Sealed 
Beam Headlamp Assembly". 

Issued on July 31, 1986 

Diane K. Steed 
Administrator 

51 F.R. 28238 
August 6, 1986 



PART 571; S 108-PRE-267-268 



PREAMBLE TO AN AMENDMENT TO 
FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 108 

Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment 
(Docltet No. 81-11; Notice 19) 



ACTION: Correction. 

SUMMARY: This notice corrects errors occurring in 
the final rule published on May 2, 1986, adopting 
HB3 and HB4 light sources for replaceable bulb head- 
lamps. The notice also clarifies an apparent discrep- 
ancy between the amendment published on May 2, 
and an amendment published on May 7 with refer- 
ence to the amendment of paragraph S4.1.1.38 and 
its redesignation as paragraph S4.1.1.39. An error in 
Figure 13 is corrected. An explanation is provided 
with respect to two of the nonsubstantive amend- 
ments published on August 8, 1986. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: The corrections are effective 
October 2, 1986. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: During the first 
week of May 1986 the agency published two notices 
amending Standard No. 108. The notice that ap- 
peared on May 2 (51 FR 16325) adopted the HB3 and 
HB4 light sources for use in replaceable bulb head- 
lamps, and redesignated the existing light source as 
HBl. This amendment was not effective until June 2. 
Several days later, on May 7, a notice was published 
(51 FR 16847) amending the specifications for the ex- 
isting light source, but this notice was effective upon 
publication. 

When read in order of publication, some confusion 
results. The notice of May 2 removes S4.1.1.39, 
redesignates S4. 1.1.40 as S4.1.1.38 and revises it, and 
redesignates S4.1.1.38 as S4.1.1.39 and revises it. 
The notice of May 7 revises S4. 1.1.38. It is impossible 
to revise S4.1.1.38 (formerly S4.1.1.40) as adopted on 
May 2 on the basis of the revision of S4.1.1.38 
published on May 7. However, there should be no con- 
fusion when revision is made on the basis of the effec- 
tive dates of May 7 and June 2: S4. 1.1.38 (as it ap- 
pears in 49 CFR 571.108 as of October 1, 1985) is 
revised for the period May 7-June 2, 1986; on June 2 
S4. 1.1.38 is redesignated as S4. 1.1.39 and further 
revised. On June 2 the existing S4. 1.1.40 becomes the 



new S4.1.1.38 and is revised in certain respects. 
Because amendments are effective on the date speci- 
fied, there is no legal reason to republish the May 2 
amendments, and the agency regrets any confusion 
that may have been caused by publication of the 
notices out of sequence. 

The notice of May 2, however, does contain errors in 
the text of S6.7.2(c) and S6.8. In both these sections 
the value of relative humidity is given as 40 plus or 
minus 10%. Although this was the value initially pro- 
posed, between the time of the proposal and the rule 
NHTSA had adopted 30% as the value in another 
rulemaking (50 FR 21052, May 22, 1985); therefore 
correction is made to specify 30 plus or minus 10%. In 
the amendment redesignating S4.1.1.38 as 84. 1.1. 39, 
the plus sign was inadvertently omitted from the 
general specification for lower beam of the HBl light 
source, and the word "Engineering" was omitted 
from the title of the Illuminating Engineering Socie- 
ty of North America. In paragraph S4.5.8 the word 
"replacement" should have been "replaceable." 

Greneral Motors has brought to the agency's atten- 
tion the fact that the value for dimension AB in 
Figure 11 is properly .56 inch rather than .54 inch, 
and an appropriate correction is made. 

The agency has found an error in Figure 13 pertain- 
ing to the Type LF headlamp unit, in which letters 
representing Dimensions C and L were transposed. 
This notice republishes Figure 13 to correct that error. 

Finally, the nonsubstantive amendments published 
on August 6, 1986, (51 FR 28238) purported to change 
paragraphs S6.7.2(a)(2), (b)(2), and (c)(2), and 
S6.7.2(cX3); however, the three subparagraphs (2), 
and subparagraph (3) were eliminated by the amend- 
ments published on May 2, so that the purported 
amendments are without legal effect. 

Because the amendments are corrective in nature 
and impose no additional burdens on any person, it is 
hereby found that for good cause shown that an effec- 
tive date earlier than 180 days after issuance of the 
rule is in the public interest, and the amendment is 
effective upon publication in the Federal Register. 



PART 571; S108-PRE 269 



In consideration of the foregoing Part 571 is amend- In Figure 11 the value ".54" for letter AB occurring 

ed as follows: under the column headed "Inch" is changed to ".56." 

In Subparagraph (b) of paragraoh S4. 1.1.39 the In Figure 13 under the diagram pertaining to the 

lower beam for the HBl Specification is changed from T3Tje LF headlamp unit, the letters "C REF" and "L" 

"700 - 15 percent" to "700 ± 15 percent." are transposed. 

In Subparagraph (d) of paragraph 84. 1.1.39 the Issued on September 26, 1986 
word "Engineering" is inserted between the words 
"Illuminating" and "Society." 

In Paragraph S4.5.8 the word "replacement" is cor- 
rected to read "replaceable." Barry Felrice 

Subparagraph (c) of paragraph S6.7.2 is revised by Associate Administrator 

changing the numeral "40" to "30." for Rulemaking 

In the penultimate sentence of paragraph S6.8 the 

numeral "40" is changed to "30." 51 F.R. 35222 

October 2, 1986 



PART 571; S108-PRE 270 



PREAMBLE TO AN AMENDMENT TO 
FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 108 

Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment 
(Docket No. 81-11; Notice 20) 



ACTION: Corrections. 

SUMMARY: This notice corrects two errors appearing 
in the final rule published on May 2, 1986, adopting 
HB3 and HB4 light sources for replaceable bulb 
headlamps, specifically in paragraphs S6.7.2(b) and 
S6.8. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: The corrections are effective 
October 3, 1986. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NHTSA published 
a final rule on May 2, 1986, amending Federal Motor 
Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 (51 FR 16325) 
which, in pertinent part, revised the internal heat 
test and humidity test for replaceable bulb head- 
lamps (paragraph S6.7.2 and S6.8 respectively). In 
paragraph S6.7.2(b) the Celsius value for the head- 
lamp soak temperature was mistakenly given as "34 
-1-4-0 degrees C;" the correct value is "35 -(-4-0 
degrees C." In paragraph S6.8 the Celsius value for 
the headlamp soak temperature was erroneously 



given as "20 -^ 4 - degrees C;" the correct value is 
"23 + 4-0 degrees C". These errors are corrected. 

Because the amendments are corrective in nature 
and impose no additional burdens on any person, it is 
hereby found for good cause shown that an effective 
date earlier than 180 days after issuance of the rule is 
in the public interest, and the amendments are effec- 
tive upon publication in the Federal Register. 

In consideration of the foregoing Part 571 is amend- 
ed as follows: 

Sec. 571.108 (Corrected) 

In the final sentence of subparagraph (b) of para- 
graph S6.7.2, the numeral "34" is changed to "35." 

In the penultimate sentence of paragraph S6.8 the 
numeral "20" is changed to "23." 

Issued on October 1, 1986 



Barry Felrice 
Associate Administrator 

for Rulemaking 
51 F.R. 35357 
October 3, 1986 



PART 571; S108-PRE 271-272 



PREAMBLE TO AN AMENDMENT TO 
FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 

Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment 
(Doclcet No. 85-02; Notice 2) 



108 



ACTION: Final Rule. 

SUMMARY: This notice adopts amendments to Safety 
Standard No. 108 to allow motor vehicles including 
motorcycles to be equipped with Type A and Type E 
headlamps with a simplified mounting system in- 
tended to improve the incidence of correct headlamp 
aim. The headlamps are designated Type G and Type 
H. The retaining ring and mounting ring assembly 
used to hold the headlamp in place are eliminated. 
The new mounting systerr. incorporates integral 
mounting /aiming tabs on the body of the headlamp 
and permits the headlamp to attach directly to the 
aiming screws, and thus the car body. 

DATE: Effective date of the amendment is November 
12, 1986. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On December 20, 
1984, Chrysler Corporation petitioned the National 
Highway Traffic Safety Administration for rulemak- 
ing to amend 49 CFR 571.108 Motor Vehicle Safety 
Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and 
Associ-ated Equipment to allow the use of a new 
mounting system it had developed for plastic 
headlamps. According to Chrysler, its new system 
reduces vehicle weight, is less costly, and simplifies 
headlamp aim and replacement. The headlamps and 
their mounting system continue to meet all applicable 
performance requirements of Standard No. 108, in- 
cluding vibration, corrosion, and photometries. The 
agency granted Chrysler's petition, and on March 25, 
1986, published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (51 
FR 10237). 

Until 1983, headlamp systems specified by 
Standard No. 108, consisted of sealed beam 
headlamps, rings for mounting and aiming purposes, 
and rings for retaining the headlamps. At that time 
Standard No. 108 was amended to permit the 
replaceable bulb headlamp in which the size and shape 
are left to the manufacturer's design and thereby 
vary significantly from • that of traditional sealed 
beam lamps. Attendant with this styling freedom 



was the freedom to mount the lamps in whatever 
manner the designer chose though continuing to meet 
aim performance requirements. The method that has 
evolved is the placement of mounting tabs and ball 
joints on the rear of the reflector area. These integral 
mounting tabs attach to the screws and pivots which 
are the headlamp's aim adjustment mechanism, and 
the traditional metal mounting and retaining rings 
are eliminated. 

Chrysler's petition expands the use of such integral 
mounting /aiming systems from replaceable bulb 
headlamps to two types of sealed beam headlamps. As 
the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking observed, the new 
mounting system, which Chrysler calls the "Integral 
Mount Sealed Beam Headlamp System" eliminates 
the traditional metal retaining ring and metal 
mounting ring assembly used to hold a sealed beam 
headlamp in the vehicle. This simplified mounting 
system incorporates integral mounting /aiming tabs 
on the body of the sealed beam headlamp and permits 
the headlamp to attach directly to the aiming screws, 
and thus the car body. Chrysler wishes to introduce 
this integral mounting system on headlamps which 
are physically and functionally similar to the Type A, 
the four lamp, small rectangular, headlamp system, 
and the Type E, the two lamp, small rectangular 
headlamp system. Because the mounting system 
would be an integral part of the headlamp, the 
headlamps so manufactured would not be inter- 
changeable with Type A or Type E sealed beam 
headlamps. Therefore, Type A and Type E headlamp 
systems incorporating such an integral mount would 
be considered a "new" system and would need a 
designation to differentiate them from standard Type 
A and Type E systems. Accordingly, Chrysler sug- 
gested Type G and Type H as the new designations. 

The two major changes to the standard desired by 
Chrysler deal with the dimensional aspects of sealed 
beam headlamp design related to interchangeability 
features and the lamp system nomenclature. Chrysler 
suggested permitting vehicles to be equipped with 



PART 571; S 108-PRE-273 



two Type IGl and two Type 2G1, or two Type 2H1 
headlamps, designed to conform to the dimensional 
requirements and the applicable performance re- 
quirements normally required of existing sealed beam 
headlamps and headlamp systems. 

Chrysler attributed the following benefits to the 
simplified mounting system: 

• Weight savings of one half pound per headlamp 
over existing plastic sealed beam headlamp systems. 
This will enhance fuel economy. 

• Simplified headlamp replacement; only two 
screws (instead of four) required to remove the lamp 
and install its replacement. 

• Lamp realm upon replacement is unnecessary 
if the aiming screws are not disturbed. Chrysler 
claims that, because it has specified a certain close 
relationship between the aiming pads and the moun- 
ting tabs/mounting ball, lamp aim will be unaffected 
by replacement. 

• Simplified aiming process because fewer ad- 
justments are necessary for proper aim than current 
aiming systems.' Chrysler also claims that headlamp 
aiming, when re-aiming is necessary, will be per- 
formed better, faster and more willingly. 

In support of some of those claims. Chrysler pro- 
vided pertinent data. For example, to demonstrate 
the improvement in aimability, Chrysler performed 
an aim deviation test where integral mount lamp 
assemblies were exercised through the full range of 
aim adjustment, vertically or horizontally. Chrysler 
found that the mean vertical aim deviation with the 
integral mount system was 32 percent of that of the 
standard Chrysler headlamp mounting system and 14 
percent of the mean deviation in the horizontal axis. 

Chrysler specified a close relationship in the aiming 
and mounting planes so that replacement lamps will 
achieve essentially the same aim as the originals. The 
petitioner offered data which show the variability in 
aim when standard sealed beam lamps are replaced, 
and when integral mount sealed beam lamps are 
replaced. The standard lamps had a mean aim devia- 
tion of 1.262 inces horizontal and 3.374 inches ver- 
tical. The integral mount lamps had a mean aim 
deviation of 0.799 inch horizontal and 0.879 inch ver- 
tical. This shows a replacement aim error improve- 
ment of 31 percent horizontal and 74 percent vertical 
for the samples tested. Based on the results, Chrysler 
argued that the new system can be replaced without 
realm. This is in distinct contrast to most existing 
sealed beam lamps which often require realm upon 
replacement. 



To assure that proper interchangeability occurs 
with sealed beam headlamps incorporating the in- 
tegral mounting system, Chrysler submitted draw- 
ings which prescribe the necessary interchangeability 
dimensions and features (proposed as Figures 17 and 
18). These figures also require that the nearly- 
identical Type 2G1 and the IGl, be designed with a 
different spacing on the mounting tabs to assure non- | 
interchangeability since one is a lower beam lamp and ! 
the other is an upper. j 

Additionally, Chrysler stated that the new 
headlamp systems will be designed to conform to all i 
applicable tests as met by existing sealed beam lamps, i 
This would include lamp retention, torque deflection, 
aim adjustment, inward force, connector tests, and 
photometry tests. 

After review of the new mounting system, NHTSA 
tentatively concluded that it offers the potential for 
improved headlamp aim at the time of the vehicle's 
manufacture with the possibility of no further realm 
during the life of the vehicle, even upon headlamp 
replacement. This would provide an enhancement of 
motor vehicle safety, though the benefits cannot be 
quantified. To achieve these benefits, when the lamp 
systems go into production, they must achieve the 
same level of aim performance that the prototypes 
achieved. If production tolerances closely approx- 
imate those of the prototypes, the system will be 
likely to remain properly aimed over the vehicle's life, 
and fulfill Chrysler's expectations for it. 

Therefore, NHTSA proposed on March 25, 1986, 
amendments of the nature Chrysler requested, 
however, the system would be a modification of all 
Type A and Type E headlamps and not just those with 
plastic lenses. NHTSA also proposed that Type G and 
Type H be available for use on motorcycles, though 
benefits for that application are less clear. 

Seven comments were received on the proposal. 
The new headlamps and mounting system were en- 
dorsed by Ford Motor Company, Chrysler, GE, and 
Volkswagen of America. Ford and Chrysler sug- 
gested a clarification of the torque deflection test to 
specify that a second reading on the thumb wheel 
shall be taken. The agency concurs, and the rule 
adopts this suggestion. General Electric stated that 
the consumer's best interests are not necessarily 
served by the action, because it is unlikely that retail 
automotive parts outlets will stock presumably low- 
demand Type G and Type H headlamps. While this 
may be true, the new headlamps should be available 
from the parts departments of all dealers who sell 
vehicles equipped with the new headlamps, and the 



PART 571; S 108-PRE-274 



consumer's search for a replacement lamp need not 
compromise safety. Corning also opposed the new 
system for the same reason. Stanley Electric Co., and 
Koito also raised the issue of proliferation. Both Koito 
Electric Co. and Stanley objected to the proposal 
because it covers a design of a proprietary nature, 
and that its use, at least in the United States, should 
be on a royalty-free basis. After reviewing these com- 
ments, Chrysler filed a statement in the docket on 
June 10, 1986, that "all manufacturers of motor 
vehicles, headlamps or headlamp components" 
wishing to manufacture or use the new system "will 
be granted royalty-free non-exclusive licenses to use 
the mounting system upon request, under U.S. 
patents and U.S. patent applications ... to the extent 
that use of the mounting system is necessary to 
employ the proposed optional headlamp system on 
motor vehicles regulated by the U.S. Motor Vehicle 
Safety Standards." NHTSA has therefore decided to 
adopt the rule as proposed. 

NHTSA has considered this rule and has deter- 
mined that it is not major within the meaning of 
Executive Order 12291 "Federal Regulation" or 
significant under Department of Transportation 
regulatory policies and procedures. The economic im- 
pact is expected to be minimal and therefore, a 
regulatory evaluation has not been prepared. Since 
use of the headlamps is optional, the rule will not im- 
pose additional requirements or costs but will permit 
manufacturers greater flexibility in use of 
headlighting systems. 

Because this amendment relieves a restriction and 
because of the necessity of vehicle, headlamp, and 
bulb manufacturers to plan production and distribu- 
tion on an orderly basis, the agency finds that an im- 
mediate effective date is in the public interest. 

In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR 571.108 
Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, 
Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment is 
amended as follows: 

1. In paragraph S4. 1.1.34 the following are 
added to the chart of headlighting types. 



System 



Headlamp Type 



Type IGl and - 

Type 2G1 
Type2Hl 



Number 

of Headlamps 

* 

1 lamp each 

1 lamp 



2. New paragraphs S4.1.1.47 and S4.1.1.48 are 
added to read: 

S4.1.1.47 Instead of being equipped with a 
headlamp system specified in Table I and Table III, a 



passenger car, multipurpose passenger vehicle, 
truck, or bus manufactured on or after September 1, 
1986, may be equipped with a Type G headlamp 
system consisting of two type IGI and two type 2G1 
headlamps or a Type H headlamp system consisting 
of two type 2H1 headlamps that are designed to con- 
form to the following requirements: 

(a) The dimensions specified in Figures 21 and 
22. 

(b) The requirements of SAE Standard J579c, 
Sealed Beam Headlamp Units for Motor Vehicles, 
December 1978. 

(c) The requirements of SAE Standard J580 
August 1979, Sealed Beam Headlamp Assembly, with 
the following exceptions: 

(1) Sections 2.2, 2.3, 4, 6.3 and 6.5 

(2) In place of Sections 6.3 and 6.5, the follow- 
ing requirements shall be met: 

(i) Retention Test. The sealed beam unit shall 
remain held securely in its design position after 20 
replacements. 

(ii) Torque Deflection Test. The headlamp 
assembly to be tested shall be mounted in the de- 
signed vehicle position and set at nominal aim (0.0). A 
special adaptor (Figure 18) for the deflectometer of 
Figure 3 shall be clamped onto the headlamp 
assembly. A torque of 20 lb. -in. '(2. 25 N-m) shall be ap- 
plied to the headlamp assembly through the deflec- 
tometer, and a reading on the thumb wheel shall be 
taken. The torque shall be removed and a second 
reading on the thumb wheel shall be taken. The dif- 
ference between the two readings shall not exceed 
0.30 degree. 

S4.1.1.48 The lens of each headlamp designed to 
conform with paragraph S4. 1.1.47 shall be marked 
with the symbol "DOT" (either horizontally or ver- 
tically) which shall constitute certification that the 
headlamp conforms to applicable Federal motor vehi- 
cle safety standards, and with one of the following 
designations as appropriate: 

(a) A lens for a headlamp, nominal size 100 x 
165mm, incorporating an upper beam only and 
meeting the upper beam performance requirement of 
SAE J579c December 1978, Table 2, Upper Beam, 
shall be labeled IGl. 

(b) A lens for a headlamp, nominal size 100 x 165 
mm, incorporating both an upper beam and a lower 
beam meeting the performance requirements of SAE 
J579c December 1978, Table 2 Upper Beam and 
Lower Beam shall be labelled 2G1. 



PART 571; S 108-PRE-275 



(c) A lens for a headlamp, nominal size 100 x 165 Issued on November 4, 1986. 
mm, incorporating both an upper beam and a lower Diane K. Steed 

beam meeting the performance requirements of SAE Administrator 

J579C December 1978, Table 1 shall be labelled 2H1. 5^ P P ^^g^g 

3. Figures 18, 21, and 22 are added as follows: November 12 1986 



PART 571; S 108-PRE-276 



MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 108 

Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment— Passenger Cars, lUlultipurpose 
Passenger Vehicles, Trucks, Buses, Trailers, and Motorcycles 

(Docket No. 69-18) 



51. Purpose and scope. This standard specifies 
requirements for original and replacement lamps, 
reflective devices, and associated equipment neces- 
sary for signaling and for the safe operation of 
motor vehicles during darkness and other condi- 
tions of reduced visibility. 

52. Application. This standard applies to pas- 
senger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, 
trucks, buses, trailers (except pole trailers and 
trailer converter dollies), and motorcycles, and to 
lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment 
for replacement of like equipment on vehicles to 
which this standard applies. 

53. Definitions. "Aiming Reference Plane" 
means a plane which is perpendicular to the 
longitudinal axis of the vehicle and tangent to the 
forwardmost aiming pad on the headlamp. 

"Flash" means a cycle of activation and deac- 
tivation of a lamp by automatic means, continuing 
until stopped either automatically or manually. 

"Headlamp test fixture" means a device de- 
signed to support a replaceable bulb headlamp in 
the test position specified in the laboratory tests in 
S4.1.1.36.(d), and whose mounting hardware and 
components are those necessary to operate the 
headlamp as installed in a motor vehicle. 

"Replaceable bulb headlamp" means a headlamp 
comprising a bonded lens and reflector assembly 
and one or two standardized replaceable light 
sources. 

"Seasoning" means a process of energizing the 
filament of a headlamp, at design voltage, for a 
period of time equal to 1 percent of average rated 
laboratory life. 

["Standardized replaceable light source" means 
n assembly of a capsule, base, and terminals, that 
meets the requirements of S4.1.1.39. (51 F.R. 
16325— May 2, 1986. Effective: June 2, 1986)1 



"Type 1" means a headlamp, with only an upper 
beam filament, whose identification code begins 
with the numeral "1." 

"Type 2" means a headlamp, with both upper 
and lower beam filaments, whose identification 
code begins with the numeral "2." 

S4. Requirements. 

S4.1 Required motor-vehicle lighting equipment. 

S4.1.1. Except as provided in succeeding para- 
graphs of S4.1.1., each vehicle shall be equipped 
with at least the number of lamps, reflective 
devices, and associated equipment specified in 
Tables I and III, as applicable. Required equipment 
shall be designed to conform to the SAE Standards 
or Recommended Practices referenced in those 
tables. Table I applies to multipurpose passenger 
vehicles, trucks, trailers, and buses, 80 or more 
inches in overall width. Table III applies to 
passenger cars and motorcycles and to multi- 
purpose passenger vehicles, trucks, trailers, and 
buses less than 80 inches in overall width. 

54.1.1.1. A truck tractor need not be equipped 
with turn-signal lamps mounted on the rear if the 
turn signal lamps at or near the front are so con- 
structed (double-faced) and so located that they 
meet the requirements for double-faced turn 
signals specified in SAE Standard J588e, Turn 
Signal Lamps, September 1970. 

54.1.1.2. A truck tractor need not be equipped 
with any rear side-marker devices, rear clearance 
lamps, and rear identification lamps. 

54.1.1.3. Intermediate side-marker devices are 
not required on vehicles less than 30 feet in overall 
length. 

54.1.1.4. Reflective material conforming to 
Federal Specification L-S-300, Sheeting and 



(Rev. 5/2/86) 



PART 571; S 108-1 



Tape, Reflective; Norirexposed Lens, Adhesive Backing, 
September 7, 1965, may be used for side reflex 
reflectors if this material, as used on the vehicle, 
meets the performance standards in either Table I 
or Table lA of SAE Standard J594f, Reflex Reflec- 
tors, January 1977. 



Test points (deg) 



Turn 
signal 



Stop 



Park- 
ing 



Tail 



lOU, 


lOD . . 


. . 5L, 


5R 


20 


20 


20 


20 






20L 


, 20R 


12.5 


12.5 


10 


15 


5U, 


5D 


, . lOL 


, lOR 


37.5 


37.5 


20 


40 






V 




87.5 


87.5 


70 


90 






lOL, 


, lOR 


50 


50 


35 


40 


H .. 




. 5L, 


5R 


100 


100 


90 


100 






V 




100 


100 


100 


100 



FIGURE la. — Required percentages of minimum 
candlepower of Figure lb. 

Minimum design candiepower requirements are determined by 
multiplying the percentage given in this Figure by the minimum 
allowable candlepower values in Figure lb. The resulting values shall be 
truncated after one digit to the right of the decimal point. 

S4.1.1.5 The turn-signal operating unit on each 
passenger car and multipurpose passenger vehicle, 
truck, and bus less than 80 inches in overall width, 
manufactured on or after January 1, 1973, shall be 
self-cancelling by steering wheel rotation and 
capable of cancellation by a manually operated 
control. 

S4.1.1.6. [Each stop lamp manufactured to 
replace a stop lamp that was designed to conform 
to SAE Standard J586b Stop Lamps, June 1966, 
may also be designed to conform to J586b. (51 F.R. 
28238— August 6, 1986. Effective: August 6, 1986.)! It 
shall meet the photometric minimum candlepower 
requirements for Class A red turn-signal lamps 
specified in SAE Standard J575d, Tests for Motor 
Vehicle Lighting Devices and Components, August 
1967. Each such lamp [manufactured for use] on a 
passenger car and on a multipurpose passenger 
vehicle, truck, trailer, or bus less than 80 inches in 
overall width shall have an effective projected 
luminous area not less than 3V2 square inches. If 
multiple compartment lamps or multiple lamps are 
used, the effective projected luminous area of each 
compartment or lamp shall be not less than 3V2 
square inches; however, the photometric 
requirements may be met by a combination of 
compartments or lamps. 



54.1.1.7. [Each turn signal lamp manufactured 
to replace a turn signal lamp that was designed to 
conform to SAE Standard J588d Turn Signal 
Lamps, June 1966, may also be designed to con- 
form to J588d. (51 F.R. 28238— August 6, 1987. 
Effective: August 6, 1986.)! Each such lamp 
[manufactured for use] on a passenger car and on 
a multipurpose passenger vehicle, truck, trailer or 
bus less than 80 inches in overall width shall have 
an effective projected luminous area not less than 
3V2 square inches. If multiple compartment lamps 
or multiple lamps are used, the effective projected 
luminous area of each compartment or lamp shall 
be not less than 3V2 square inches; however, the 
photometric requirements may be met by a com- 
bination of compartments or lamps. Each such 
lamp [manufactured for use) on a multipurpose 
passenger vehicle, truck, trailer or bus 80 inches or 
more in overall width shall have an effective pro- 
jected luminous area not less than 12 square 
inches. 

54.1.1.8. For each motor vehicle less than 30 feet 
in overall length, the photometric-minimum 
candlepower requirements for side marker lamps 
specified in SAE Standard J592e, Clearance, Side 
Marker, and Identification Lamps, July 1972, may 
be met for all inboard test points at a distance of 15 
feet from the vehicle and on a vertical plane that is 
perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the vehicle 
and located midway between the front and rear 
side-marker lamps. 

54.1.1.9. Boat trailers need not be equipped with 
both front and rear clearance lamps, provided an 
amber (to front) and red (to rear) clearance lamp is 
located at or near the midpoint on each side of the 
trailer so as to indicate its extreme width. 

54.1.1.10. Multiple hcense-plate lamps and 
backup lamps may be used to fulfill the re- 
quirements of the SAE Standards applicable to 
such lamps referenced in Tables I and III. 

54.1.1.11. A parking lamp, taillamp, stop lamp, 
or turn-signal lamp shall meet the minimum 
percentage specified in Figure la of the 
corresponding minimum allowable value specified 
in Figure lb. The maximum candlepower output of 
each stop, turn signal, tail and parking lamp shall 



(Rev. B/16/86) 



PART 571; S 108-2 



not exceed that prescribed in Figure lb. [The 
values specified in Figure la and Figure lb are 
substituted for those specified in Table I of the 
following SAE Standards: J222 Parking Lamps, 
J585e Taillamps (maximum at H or above), J585c 
Stap Lamps, and J588e Turn Signal Lamps, ex- 
cept that motorcycle turn signal lamps need meet 
only one-half of the minimum photometric values 
specified in Figure lb. (50 F.R. 23813— June 6, 1985. 
Effective: June 6, 1985)1 



Lamp 



Lighted Sections 
12 3 



Stop 80/300 95/360 110/420 

Tail' 2/18 3.5/20 5.0/25 

Parking- 4.0/125 

Red turn signal 80/300 95/360 110/420 

Yellow turn signal rear 130/750 150/900 175/1050 

Yellow turn signal front 220/ - 240/ - 275/ - 

Yellow turn signal front^ .... 500/ - 600/ - 685/ - 

Figure lb.— Minimum and maximum allowable candlepower 
values. 

' Maximum al H or above. 

' The maximum candlepower value of 125 applies to all test points at H 
or above. The maximum allowable candlepower value below H is 250. 

^ Values apply when the optical axis (filament center) of the front-turn 
signal is at a spacing less than 4 inches (10 cm.) from the lighted edge of 
the headlamp unit providing the lower beam, or from the lighted edge of 
any additional lamp installed as original equipment or used in lieu of the 
lower beam. 



54.1.1.13. Instead of headlamps designed to con- 
form to the requirements of Table I and Table III, a 
passenger car, multipurpose passenger vehicle, 
truck, or bus may be equipped with two white 
headlamps that are designed to conform to: 

(a) the requirements of SAE Standard J571d, 
Dimensional Specifications for Sealed Beam 
Headlamp Units, June 1976, that apply to Type 2A 
sealed beam headlamp imits, except that the 
designation "2A" shall not appear on the lens, and 
the ground terminal shall be rotated clockwise 45 
degrees; and 

(b) the requirements of SAE Standard J579c, 
Sealed Beam Headlamp Units for Motor Vehicles, 
December [1978], and subreferenced standards, that 
apply to Type 2 headlamp units; 

(c) SAE Standard J580b, Sealed Beam Headlamp 
Assembly, February 1974. 

54.1 .1 .1 4. The lens of each headlamp that conforms 
with paragraph S4.1.1.13 shall be marked with the 
symbol "DOT" (printed horizontally) or "DOT" 
(printed vertically) which shall constitute a certifica- 
tion that the headlamp conforms to all ap- 
plicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, and 
shall be labeled 2E1. 



S4.1.1.12. A parking lamp, taillamp, stop lamp, 
or turn-signal lamp is not required to meet the 
minimum photometric value at each test point 
specified in this standard if the sum of the percen- 
tage of the minimum candlepower measured at the 
test points is not less than that specified for each 
group listed in Figure Ic. 



Groups and test points 


Turn 
signal 


Stap 


Park- 
ing 


Tail 


10U-5L, 5U-20L, 5D-20L, 
10D-5L 


65 


65 


60 


70 






5U-10L, H-IOL, 5D-10L . . 


125 


125 


75 


120 


H-5L, 5U-V, H-V, 5D-V, 
H-5R 


475 


475 


420 


480 


5U-10R, H-IOR, 5D-10R . . 


125 


125 


75 


120 


10U-5R, 5U-20R, 5D-20R, 
10D-5R 


65 


65 


60 


70 







Figure Ic— Sum of the percentages of grouped minimum 
candlepower. 



54.1.1.15. At a voltage of 12.8 volts, the maximum 
design wattage for the upper and lower beams of 
each Type 2E1 headlamp shall be 70 watts for the up- 
per beam and 60 watts for the lower beam. 

54.1.1.16. All passenger cars and multipurpose 
passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses of less than 80 
inches overall width shall be equipped with turn 
signal operating units designed to complete a 
durability test of 100,000 cycles. 

54.1.1.17. A trailer that is less than 30 inches 
in overall width may be equipped with only one 
of each of the following lamps and reflective devices, 
located at or near its vertical centerline: Taillamp, 
stoplamp, and rear reflex reflector. 

54.1 .1 .1 8. A trailer that is less than 6 feet in overall 
length, including the trailer tongue, need not be 
equipped with front side-marker lamps and front side 
reflex reflectors. 



(Rev. 6/6/86) 



PART 571; S 108-3 



54.1.1.19. A lamp designed to use a type of bulb 
that has not been assigned a mean spherical 
candlepower rating by its manufacturer and is not 
listed in SAE Standard J573d, Lamp Bulbs and 
Sealed Units, December 1968, shall meet the ap- 
plicable requirements of this standard when used 
with any bulb of the type specified by the lamp 
manufacturer, operated at the bulb's design 
voltage. A lamp that contains a sealed -in bulb shall 
meet these requirements with the bulb operated at 
the bulb's design voltage. 

54.1.1.20. Except for a lamp having a sealed-in 
bulb, a lamp shall meet the applicable requirements 
of this standard when tested with a bulb whose fila- 
ment is positioned within ±.010 inch of the 
nominal design position specified in SAE Standard 
J573d, Lamp Bulbs and Sealed Units, December 
1968, or specified by the bulb manufacturer. 

54.1.1.21. The lens of each headlamp designed 
to conform to SAE Standard J579c, Sealed Beam 
Headlamp Units for Motor Vehicles, December 
1978, shall be marked with the symbol 

"D 
"DOT" or 

rp>> 

which shall constitute a certification that the 
headlamp conforms to applicable Federal motor 
vehicle safety standards, and with one of the 
following designations, as appropriate: 

(a) A lens for rectangular headlamp (100 x T65 
mm) incorporating an upper beam only, shall be 
labeled lAl. 

(b) A lens for a rectangular headlamp (100 X 165 
mm), incorporating both an upper beam and a 
lower beam shall be labeled 2A1. 

(c) A lens for a rectangular headlamp (142 x 200 
mm), incorporating both an upper beam and a 
lower beam, shall be labeled 2B1. 

(d) A lens for a circular headlamp (146-mm diam- 
eter), incorporating an upper beam only, shall be 
labeled ICl. 

(e) A lens for a circular headlamp (146-mm 
diameter), incorporating both an upper and a lower 
beam shall be labeled 2C1. 

(f) A lens for a circular headlamp (178-mm 
diameter), incorporating both an upper beam and a 
lower beam, shall be labeled 2D1. 



S4.1.1.22. A backup lamp is not required to meet 
the minimum photometric values at each test point 
specified in Table I of SAE Standard J593c, 
Backup Lamps [February 19861 if the sum of the 
candlepower measured at the test points within 
each group listed in Figure 2 is not less than the 
group totals specified in that figure. 



S4.1 .1 .23. Variable-load turn-signal flashers shall 
comply with voltage-drop and durability re- 
quirements with the maximum design load con- 
nected and shall comply with starting- time, flash 
rate, and percent current "on" time requirements 
both with the minimum and with the maximum 
design load connected. 



S4.1.1.24. The lowest voltage drop for turn- 
signal flashers and hazard warning-signal flashers 
measured between the input and load terminals, 
shall not exceed 0.8 volt. 



S4.1.1.25. The dimensional specifications for 
headlamp-unit retaining rings of Figures 2(B), 
5(B), and 8(B) of SAE Standard J571d, Dim^- 
sional Specifications for Sealed Beam Headlamp 
Units, June 1976, and of Figure 2(B), SAE Recom- 
mended Practice J1132 U2 mmx200 mm Sealed 
Beam Headlamp Unit, January 1976, do not apply. 



S4.1.1.26. A motor-driven cycle whose speed at- 
tainable in 1 mile is 30 mph or less need not be 
equipped with turn-signal lamps. 



S4.1.1.27. A motor-driven cycle whose speed at- 
tainable in 1 mile is 30 mph or less may be equipped 
with a stop lamp whose effective projected lumi- 
nous lens area is not less than 3V2 square inches 
and whose photometric output for the groups of 
test points specified in Figure 1 is at least one-half 
of the minimum values set forth in that figure. 



S4.1.1.28. [Each taillamp manufacutred to 
replace a taillamp designed to conform to SAE 
Standard J585d Tail Lamps, August 1970, may 
also be designed to conform to J585d. (51 F.R. 
28238— August 6, 1986. Effective: August 6, 1986).! 



'Rev. 8/16/86) 



PART 571; S 108-4 



Group 


Test point, degrees 


Total for Group, 

cd (see notes 

a, b) 


1" 


45L-5U 

45L-H 


45 




45L-5D 




2a 


30L-H _ .. _ 
30L-5-D 


50 



lOL-lOU 

10L-5U 

V-lOU 

"^ V-5U ^"" 

1 OR- lOU 

1 0R-5U 

lOL-H 

1 0L-5D 

V-H 

' v-sn 360 

lOR-H 

10R-5D 

30R-H 

^^ 30R-5D ^« 

45R-5U 

6a 45R-H 45 

45R-5D 

Figure 2— Minimum luminous intensity requirements for 
backup lamps 

" When two lamps of the same or symmetrically opposite 
design are used, the reading along the vertical axis and the 
averages of the readings for the same angles left and right of 
vertical for one lamp shall be used to determine compliance with 
the requirements. If two lamps of differing designs are used, 
they shall be tested individually and the values added to deter- 
mine that the combined units meet twice the candela 
requirements. 

^ When only one backup lamp is used on the vehicle , it shall be 
tested to twice the candela requirements. 

54.1.1.29. Each turn signal lamp manufactured to 
replace a turn signal lamp (on a motorcycle) that 
was designed to conform to SAE Standard J588d, 
Turn Signal Lamps, June 1966, may also be designed 
to conform to J588d. 

54.1.1.30. Deleted 50 F.R. 23813. June 6, 1985. 

54.1.1.31. Each turn signal lamp on a motorcycle 
manufactured on and after January 1, 1973, shall 
have an effective projected luminous area not less 
than 3V2 square inches. 

54.1.1.32. Note 6 of Table 1 in SAE Standard 
J588e, Turn Signal Lamps. September 1970, does 
not apply. A stoplamp that is not optically combined 
with a turn signal lamp shall remain activated when 
the turn-signal is flashing. 



54.1 .1 .33. At a voltage of 12.8 volts, the maximum 
design wattage for upper and lower beams on head- 
lamps designed to conform to SAE Standard J579c, 
Sealed Beam Headlamp Units for Motor Vehicles, 
December [1978], shall be as follows: 55 watts for 
upper beam on Type lAl and Type ICl, 43 watts 
for upper beam and 65 watts for lower beam on 
Type 2A1 and Type 2C1, 70 watts for upper beam 
and 60 watts for lower beam on Type 2B1, 65 watts 
for upper beam and 55 watts for lower beam on 
Type 2D1. 

54.1 .1 .34. A motorcycle may be equipped with one 
of the following headlighting systems: 

Number of 
System Headlamp type headlamps 

1 Type ICl or Type 1 (5% in.) 1 lamp 

and either 
Type 2C1 or Type 2 (5% in.) 1 lamp 

2 Type 2D1 or Type 1 (7 in.) 1 or 2 lamps 

3 Type 1 A 1 or Type 1 A 1 lamp 

and either 

Type 2A1 or Type 2A 1 lamp 

4 Type 2B1 or Type 2B 1 or 2 lamps 

5 Type2El 1 lamp 

6 Type UF 1 

and 

Type LF 1 

17 Type IGl and Type 201 1 lamp each 
8 Type2Hl llamp 

(51 F.R. 40979— November 12, 1986. Effective: November 12, 

1986)1 

54.1.1.35. Each headlamp manufactured to 
replace a headlamp designed to conform to SAE 
Standard J580a, Sealed Beam Headlamp,June 1966, 
may also be designed to conform to J580a. 

54.1.1.36. Instead of being equipped with a 
headlighting system specified in Table I or Table III, 
a motor vehicle manufactured on or after July 1, 
1983, may be equipped with a system of one or two 
replaceable bulb headlamps, if the vehicle is a 
motorcycle, or two or four replaceable bulb 
headlamps, if the vehicle is a passenger car, 
multipurpose passenger vehicle, truck, or bus. Each 
replaceable bulb headlamp shall be designed to con- 
form to the following requirements. 

(a) (1) Each replaceable bulb headlamp shall 
include components which are designed to conform 
to the applicable specifications of paragraphs 
S4.1.1.37, S4.1.1.38 and S4.1.1.39. 



(Rev. 11/12/86) 



PART 571; S 108-5 



[(2) The lens of each replaceable bulb 
headlamp shall have three pads which meet the 
requirements of Figure 4, Dimensional 
Specifications for Location of Aiming Pads on 
Replaceable Bulb Headlamp Units, (51 F.R. 
24152— July 2, 1986. Effective: July 2, 1986)1 

Except as provided in subparagraph (aX3), a 
whole number, which represents the distance in 
tenths of an inch (i.e., 0.3 inch. = 3) from the 
aiming reference plane to the respective aiming 
pads which are not in contact with that plane, 
shall be inscribed adjacent to each respective 
aiming pad on the lens. The height of these 
numbers shall be not less than .157 inch (4mm). 
If there is interference between the plane and 
the area of the lens between the aiming pads, the 
whole number will represent the distance to a 
secondary plane. The secondary plane shall be 
located parallel to the aiming reference plane 
and as close to the lens as possible without caus- 
ing interference. 

(3) If the most forward aiming pad is the lower 
inboard aiming pad, then the dimensions may be 
placed anywhere on the lens. The dimension for 
the outboard aiming pad (Dimension F in Figure 
4) shall be followed by the letter "H" and the 
dimension for the center aiming pad shall be 
followed by the letter "V". The dimensions shall 
be expressed in tenths of an inch. 

(b) Each replaceable bulb headlamp shall be 
designed to conform to the following sections of 
the specified SAE Standards and Recommended 
Practices with any standardized replaceable light 
source intended for use in such headlamp. 

(1) Section 4.6-Photometry of SAE J575, 
JUN 80 Tests for Motor Vehicle Lighting Devices 
and Components. 

(2) Section 3.1— Tesi Voltage and Section 
?>.h— Photometric Design Requirements, ex- 
cluding Tables 1 and 2 for headlamps equipped 
with Type HB3, Type HB4, Types HBl and HB3, 
or Types HBl and HB4, and excluding Table 2 of 
SAE J579c Sealed Beam Headlamp Units for 
Motor Vehicles December 1978 for headlamps in 
systems with only Type HBl. The term "aiming 
plane" in paragraph 3.5 of SAE J579c shall 
mean "aiming reference plarie." 

(3) Section b— General Requirements, Section 
Q— Design Requirements and Tests (to the extent 
listed below), Section 6.1— Aiming Adjustment 
Test, Section Q.2— Inward Force Test, and 



Section Q.A-Connector Tests of SAE J 580, AUG 
79 Sealed Beam Headlamp Assembly. 

(c) A headlamp with a glass lens need not meet 
the following tests of the sections specified: abra- 
sion resistance (S6.2), chemical resistance (S6.4), 
and impact (S6.9). If, in addition to a glass lens, the 
headlamp uses a non-plastic reflector, it need not 
meet the internal heat test of section S6.7.2. 

(d) When tested according to any of the pro- 
cedures indicated in subparagraphs (1) through (8), 
a replaceable-bulb headlamp shall meet the appro- 
priate requirement: 

(1) After an abrasion test conducted in accor- 
dance with S6.2, the headlamp shall meet the 
photometric requirements applicable to the 
headlamp system under test. 

(2) After a vibration test conducted in ac- 
cordance with S6.3, there shall be no evidence of 
loose or broken parts visible without magnifica- 
tion, except that the filament need not be un- 
broken. 

(3) After a chemical-resistance test involving 
exposure to any of the fluids listed in S6.4, there 
shall be no surface deterioration, coating 
delamination, fractures, deterioration of bonding 
materials, color bleeding or color pickup visible 
without magnification, and the headlamp shall 
meet the photometric requirements applicable to 
the headlamp system under test. 

(4) After a corrosion test conducted in ac- 
cordance with S6.5, there shall be no evidence of 
external or internal corrosion or rust visible 
without magnification. Loss of adhesion of any 
applied coating shall not occur more than .125 
inch (3.2 mm) from any sharp edge on the inside 
or outside. Corrosion may occur on terminals 
only if the current produced during the test of 
Paragraph S6.5(c) is not less than 9.7 amperes. 

(5) After a dust test conducted in accordance 
with S6.6, the headlamp shall meet the 
photometric requirements. 

(6) The headlamp shall first meet the require- 
ments of paragraph (d) (6) (A) and then those of 
paragraph (d) (6) (B). 

(A) After a temperature-cycle test conducted 
in accordance with S6.7.1, the headlamp shall 
show no evidence of delamination, fractures, 
entry of moisture or deterioration of bonding 
material, color bleeding, warpage or deformation 
visible without magnification, or lens warpage 



(Rev. 7/2/86) 



PART 571; S 108-6 



greater than .118 inch (3 mm) when 
measured perpendicular to the aiming plane 
at the point of intersection of the axis of each 
replaceable light source with the exterior 
surface of the lens, and it shall meet the 
photometric requirements [applicable to the 
headlamp system under test. (51 F.R. 
16325— May 2, 1986. Effective: June 2, 1986.)! 

(B) After an internal heat test conducted 
in accordance with S6.7.2, there shall be no 
lens warpage greater than .118 inch (3 mm) 
when measured perpendicular to the aiming 
plane at the point of intersection of the axis 
of each replaceable light source with the ex- 
terior surface of the lens, and it shall meet 
the photometric requirements [applicable to 
the headlamp system under test. (51 F.R. 
16325— May 2, 1986. Effective: June 2, 1986.)] 

(7) After a humidity test conducted in ac- 
cordance with S6.8, the inside of the headlamp 
shall show no evidence of delamination or 
moisture, fogging or condensation visible 
without magnification, and the headlamp shall 
meet the photometric requirements [applicable 
to the headlamp system under test. (51 F.R. 
16325— May 2, 1986. Effective: June 2, 1986.)! 

(8) After an impact on a headlamp with a 
plastic lens, conducted in accordance with S6.9, 
there shall not be any fracture of the adhesion of 
lens coating or delamination of materials visible 
without magnification, and the lens shall not be 
broken, cracked, or chipped. 

((e) For a headlamp equipped with one or two 
Type HBl light sources the following re- 
quirements apply. (51 F.R. 16325— May 2, 1986. 
Effective: June 2, 1986.)] 

(1) There shall be no mechanism that allows 
adjustment of an individual standardized 
replaceable light source or adjustment of reflector 
aim on a headlamp with two standardized 
replaceable light sources. 

(2) Lower beam photometries shall be pro- 
vided by a filament designed with an average life 
of 320 hours. 

(3) The lower and upper beams of a headlamp 
system consisting of two lamps, each containing 
two standardized replaceable light sources, shall 
be provided as follows: 

(i) The lower beam shall be produced in one of 
the following ways: 



(A) By the outboard light source (or the 
upper one if arranged vertically), designed to 
conform to the lower beam requirements of 
Table I of SAE Standard J579c Sealed Beam 
Headlamp Units for Motor Vehicles, Dec. 
1978; or 

(B) By both light sources, designed to con- 
form to the lower beam requirements of 
Table I of SAE Standard J579c Sealed Beam 
Headlamp Units for Motor Vehicles, Dec. 
1978. 

(ii) The upper beam shall be provided in one 
of the following ways: 

(A) By the inboard light source, (or the 
lower one if arranged vertically) designed to 
conform to the upper beam requirements of 
Table I of SAE Standard J579c Sealed Beam 
Headlamp Units for Motor Vehicles, Dec. 
978; or 

(B) By both light sources, designed to con- 
form to the upper beam requirements of 
Table I of SAE Standard J579c Sealed Beam 
Headlamp Units for Motor Vehicles, Dec. 
1978. 

(iii) Each such headlamp manufactured as 
replacement motor vehicle equipment shall be 
designed to meet the requirements of 
paragraphs (eX3Xi) and (eX3Xii) of this section. 

(4) The lower and upper beams of a headlamp 
system consisting of four lamps, each containing 
a single standardized replaceable light source, 
shall be provided as follows: 

(i) The lower beam shall be produced by the 
outboard lamp (or upper one if arranged ver- 
tically), designed to conform to the lower beam 
requirements of Table I of SAE Standard 
J579c Sealed Beam Headlamp Units for Motor 
Vehicles, Dec. 1978. The lens of each such 
headlamp shall be permanently marked with 
the letter "L". 

(ii) The upper beam shall be produced by the 
inboard lamp (or lower one if arranged ver- 
tically), designed to conform to the upper beam 
requirements of Table I of SAE Standard 
J579c Sealed Beam, Headlamp Units for Motor 
Vehicles, Dec. 1978. The lens of each such 
headlamp shall be permanently marked with 
the letter "U". 



(Rev. 5/2/86) 



PART 571; S 108-7 



(iii) Each such headlamp manufactured as 
replacement motor vehicle equipment shall be 
designed to meet the requirements of paragraphs 
{eX4Xi) and (eX4)(ii) of this section. 

[(f) For headlamp systems equipped with Type 
HB3 and HB4, HBl and HB3, or HBl and HB4 
light sources, the following requirements apply. 

(1) There shall be no mechanism that allows 
adjustment of an individual light source, or ad- 
justment of reflector aim on a headlamp with two 
light sources. 

(2) Lower beam photometries shall be pro- 
vided by filaments with a minimum average 
design life of not less than 320 hours. 

(3) The lower and upper beams of a headlamp 
system consisting of two lamps, each containing 
two light sources (type HB3 and HB4, or type 
HBl with HB3 or HB4) shall be provided only as 
follows: 

(i) The lower beam shall be produced in one 
of the following ways: 

(A) By the outboard light source (or the 
uppermost if arranged vertically) or single 
light source, designed to conform to the 
lower beam requirements of Figure 17: or, 

(B) By both light sources, designed to con- 
form to the lower beam requirements of 
Figure 17. 

(ii) The upper beam shall be provided in one 
of the following ways: 

(A) By the inboard light source (or the 
lower one if arranged vertically) or single 
light source, designed to conform to the up- 
per beam requirements of Figure 17; or 

(B) By both light sources, designed to con- 
form to the upper beam requirements of 
Figure 17. 

(4) The lower and upper beams of a headlamp 
system consisting of four lamps, using HB3 and 
HB4, HBl and HB3, or HBl and HB4 light 
sources, each containing only a single light 
source, shall be provided only as follows: 

(i) The lower beam shall be produced by the 
outboard lamp (or upper one if arranged ver- 
tically), designed to conform to the lower beam 
requirements of Figure 15. The lens of each 
such headlamp shall be permanently marked 
with the letter "L". 



(ii) The upper beam shall be produced by the 
inboard lamp (or lower one if arranged ver- 
tically), designed to conform to the upper beam 
requirements of Figure 15. The lens of each 
such headlamp shall be permanently marked 
with the letter "U". 

(5) For replaceable bulb headlamps, a -t-/-V4 

degree realm tolerance is permitted for the test 

points of Figures 15 and 17. The test point 

10U-90U shall be measured from the normally 

exposed surface of the lens face. (51 F.R. 

16325— May 2, 1986) Effective: June 2, 1986)] 

S4.1.1.37. [Each lens-reflector unit manufactured 

as replacement equipment for a replaceable bulb 

headlamp system shall be designed to conform to the 

requirements of S4. 1.1.36 when any standardized 

replaceable light source is inserted in it. (51 F.R. 

16325— May 2, 1986. Effective June 2, 1986)1 

[S4.1.1.38 The lens of each replaceable bulb 
headlamp and the base of each standardized 
replaceable light source shall be marked as follows: 

(a) With the symbol "DOT" horizontally or ver- 
tically which shall constitute certification that the 
headlamp or light source conforms to all applicable 
Federal motor vehicle safety standards. 

(b) The base of each Type HB3 and HB4 light 
source shall also be marked by its manufacturer or 
importer with its HB Type Designation and the 
name or trademark registered with the U.S. Pa- 
tent Office of the manufacturer and importer (if 
applicable). 

(c) The lens of each replaceable bulb headlamp 
using HB3 or HB4 light sources, or HBl light 
sources in conjunction with HB3 or HB4 light 
sources within a headlamp system on a motor vehi- 
cle shall permanently display the Type Designa- 
tion(s) for that standardized replaceable light 
source on the lens in front of each light source. (51 
F.R. 16325— May 2, 1986. Effective: June 2. 1986)1 

[S4.1.1.39 Each standardized replaceable light 
source shall be designed to conform to the follow- 
ing requirements: 

(a) A type HBl light source shall be designed to 
conform to the dimensions specified in Figure 3 
and shall incorporate a silicone 0-ring. A Type 
HB3 light source shall be designed to conform to 
the dimensions specified in Figure 19. A Type HB4 
light source shall be designed to conform to the 
dimensions specified in Figure 20. 



(Rev. 5/2/86) 



PART 571; S 108-8 



(b) Each standardized replaceable light source the low pressure (connector) side after the light 
shall be designed to conform to the following source has been immersed in water for one minute 
general specifications: while inserted in a cylindrical aperture of 0.796 ± 

0.004 in. (20.22 ± 0.10mm) (Type HB3) or 0.875 ± 

Specification Lower beam Upper beam 0.004 in. (22.22 + 0.1 mm) (Type HB4) and 

Maximum power, watts subjected to a minimum air pressure of 69kPa (10 

fjg3 -^Q P.S.I.G. on the glass capsule side. 

• ^^"^a' ' ■ i ^^ (g) After the force deflection test conducted in 

Luminous flux, lumens: ^° , -^i or, .. ^ j n ^- r 

HBl 700 ±15% 1200 ±15% accordance with S7, the permanent deflection of 

HB3 — 1700 ± 12% the glass envelope shall not exceed 0.005 in. (0.13 

MinimS?™design ''''"'''' "" ^^) i" the direction of the applied force. 

life, hours: all. 320 150 (h) A general tolerance shall apply to Figure 3 as 

(c) The standardized replaceable light source ^o"^^^^ ± ^-^O^ in (0.10 mm) to all linear dimen- 
filament(s) shall be subject to seasoning before ^^^^^ and +/ - 1°0' to all angular dimensions ex- 
measurement of maximum power and luminous ^^P* ^«^ referenced dimensions and unless other- 
£1^^ wise specified. (51 F.R. 16325— May 2, 1986. 

Effective: June 2, 1986).] 

(d) Measurement of maximum power and 
luminous flux shall be made with the direct current 

test voltage regulated within one-quarter of one S4.1.1.41. Each passenger car manufactured on 

percent. The test voltage shall be design voltage, or after September 1, 1985, shall be equipped with 

12.8v. The measurement of luminous flux for the a high-mounted stoplamp which: 

HBl shall be in accordance with the Illuminating (a) Shall have an effective projected luminous 

Engineering Society of North America, LM-45: area not less than 4V2 square inches. 

IBS Approved Method for Electrical and (b) Shall have a signal visible to the rear through 

Photometric Measurements of General Service In- a horizontal angle from 45 degrees to the left to 45 

candescent Filament Lamps (April 1980), shall be degrees to the right of the longitudinal axis of the 

made with the black cap installed on HBl and HB4, vehicle. 

and shall be made with the electrical connector and ((.) shall have the minimum photometric values 
light source base shrouded with an opaque white j^ the amount and location listed in Figure 10, in- 
colored cover, except for the portion normally gt^^d of those in Table 1 of SAE Recommended 
located within the mtenor of the lamp housing. Practice J 186a, Supplemental High Mounted Stop 
The measurement of lummous flux for the HB3 ^^^ ^g„^ ^^^ g^g^^i ^^^^^^ September 1977. 

and HB4 shall be with the base covered with a /j\ xt j .. 4. ^.u *. r 

, .^ , . _,. ,„ , , o^ 1 mi (d) Need not meet the requirements of 

white cover shown in Figures 19-1 and 20-1. The ^s 3.1.6 Moisture Test, 3.1.7 Dust Test, 

white covers are used to eliminate the likelihood of joioz-i ■ rri4.j;oAT7.r> jj 

^ , ^ ^, ^ •„ and 3.1.8 Corrosion Test of SAE Recommended 

incorrect lumen measurement that will occur ti .l- no^ .c-^- ^ j- j ^.i. u- ^ 

, , , ^, _ ^ i-x, ,• .^ , , Practice J 186a if it IS mounted inside the vehicle, 
should the reflectance oi the light source base and 

electrical connector be low. («) Shall provide access for convenient replace- 

ment of the bulb without the use of special tools. 

(e) Measurement of minimum average design S4.1.1.42. A passenger car manufactured be- 

life shall be made at 14.0v for all light sources. ^^^^^ August 1, 1984 and September 1, 1985, may 

Testing IS conducted in a completed headlamp ^e equipped with a high-mounted stop lamp that 

assembly, or equivalent, placed in the attitude in conforms to S4 3 1 8 

which the assembly is to be installed on a motor ~i....^„Ti.j c u ■ ■ j vu 

... •' S4.1.1.43. Instead of being equipped with a 

headlighting system specified in Table I or Table 

(f) The capusule, lead wires and/or terminals on III, a passenger car, multipurpose passenger vehi- 

each Type HBl, Type HB3 and Type HB4 light cle, truck or bus manufactured on or after July 1, 

source shall be installed in the base so as to provide 1985, may be equipped with a headlighting system 

an airtight seal. Such a seal exists on Type HB3 of two Type UF and two Type LF headlamps 

and Type HB4 when no air bubbles shall appear on designed to conform to: 

(Rev. 5/2/86) PART 571; S 108-9 



(a) The ditnensions specified in FigTjres 11, 12, 
13, and 14. 

(b) The photometric requirements of Figure 15. 
A reaim tolerance of ± V4 degree is allowed for any 
test point on the Type LF lamp when tested alone, 
and such a tolerance is not allowed for the Type UF 
lamp when tested alone. For the test point 
10U-90U, measurement shall be from the normally 
exposed surface of the lens face. 

(c) The requirements of SAE Standard J579c 
Sealed Beam Headlamp Units for Motor Vehicles, 
December 1978, with the following exceptions: 

(1) The definitions in Sections 2.4 through 
2.11 do not apply: 

(2) In Section 2.12, the definition of 
"Mechanically Aimable Sealed Beam Unit" is: 
"A unit having three pads, defining a mechanical 
aiming plane, used to adjust and inspect the aim 
of the unit when installed on the vehicle." 

(3) In Section 2.13, the definition of "Aiming 
Plane" is: "A plane defined by the three aiming 
pads." 

(4) Section 3.4 does not apply. 

(5) Tables 1 and 2, and Figures 1 and 2 do not 
apply. 

(6) In Sections 3.5.1 and 3.5.3, references to 
"Tables 1 and 2" and Figure 3 are replaced by 
"Figure 15." 

(7) Section 3.6 does not apply. 

(d) When tested in accordance with Section 3.5.2 
of SAE Standard J579c Sealed Beam Headlamp 
Units for Motor Vehicles, December 1978, the 
mounted assembly (either Type UF or Type LF 
headlamps, respective mounting ring, aiming ring, 
and aim adjustment mechanism) shall be designed 
to conform to meet the requirements of Figure 15 
for upper or lower beams respectively without 
reaim when any conforming Type UF or LF head- 
lamp is tested and replaced by another conforming 
headlamp of similar type. 

(e) The requirements of SAE Standard J580, 
August 1979, Sealed Beam Headlamp Assembly, 
with the following exceptions: 

(1) Section 2.2 Mounting Ring reads: "The ad- 
justable ring upon which the sealed beam unit is 



mounted and which forces the sealed beam unit 
to seat against the aiming ring when assembled 
into a sealed beam headlamp assembly." 

(2) Section 2.3 Aiming Ring reads: "The clam- 
ping ring that retains the sealed beam unit 
against the mounting ring, and that provides an 
interface between the unit's aiming/ seating pads 
and the headlamp aimer adapter (locating 
plate)." 

(3) In Section 3, the correct version of SAE 
J575 is "SAE 575f (April 1975)." 

(4) Section 4 does not apply. 

(5) Section 5.1 reads: "Headlamps shall be 
designed so that they may be inspected and 
aimed by mechanical aimers as specified in SAE 
J602 (October 1980 Headlamp Aiming Device for 
Mechanically Aimable Sealed Beam Headlamp 
Units} without the removal of any ornamental 
trim rings or other parts." 

(6) Section 6.1.1 reads: "When the headlamp 
assembly is tested in the laboratory, a minimum 
aiming adjustment of + 2.5 deg. shall be provided 
in the horizontal plane and ±4 deg. in the 
vertical plane." 

(7) Section 6.1.2 reads: "... through an angle 
of ±2.5 deg. and ±4 deg., respectively." 

(8) Section 6.3 is retitled Retaining Ring/ 
Aiming Ring Tests. 

(9) In Section 6.3.2 add the flange thickness 
"92 X 150 mm 0.340 in. 8.6 mm)." 

(10) Figures 2, 3, and 4 do not apply, and the 
reference to them in Section 6.5 is replaced by 
"Figure 16, Deflectometer, of Federal Motor 
Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108." 

S4.1 .1 .44. The lens of each headlamp designed to 
conform to paragraph S4.1.1.43 shall be marked 
with: 

(a) The designation "UF" if it provides an upper 
beam, or "LF" if it provides a lower beam; and 

(b) The symbol "DOT" (either horizontally or 
vertically) which shall constitute a certification 
that the headlamp conforms to all applicable 
Federal motor vehicle safety standards. 



(Rev. 1in2/86) 



PART 571; S 108-10 



54.1.1.45. Each headlamp designed to conform 
to paragraph S4.1.1.43 shall also be designed to 
conform to the following specifications: 

Type LF Type UF 

Watts @ 12.8 V (design voltage) 60 max. 70 max. 

Average Life @ 14.0 V (rated voltage) 320 hr. 150 hr. 

54.1.1.46. Type F headlamps may be mounted on 
common or parallel seating and aiming planes to per- 
mit simultaneous aiming of both headlamps provided 
that or when tested with any conforming Type UF 
and LF headlamps according to paragraph S8, (a) the 
assembly (consisting of the Type UF and LF 
headlamps, mounting rings, the aiming/seating 
rings, and aim adjustment mechanism), shall be 
designed to conform to the test point values of 
Figure 15. (b) There shall be no provision for 
adjustment between the common or parallel aiming 
and seating planes of the two lamps. 

[S4.1.1.47 Instead of being equipped with a 
headlamp system specified in Table I and Table IH, a 
passenger car, multipurpose passenger vehicle, 
truck, or bus manufactured on or after September 1, 
1986, may be equipped with a Type G headlamp 
system consisting of two type IGl and two type 2G1 
headlamps or a Type H headlamp system consisting 
of two type 2H1 headlamps that are designed to con- 
form to the following requirements: 

(a) The dimensions specified in Figures 21 and 22. 

(b) The requirements of SAE Standard J579c, 
Sealed Beam Headlamp Units for Motor Vehicles, 
December 1978. 

(c) The requirements of SAE Standard J580 AUG 
1979, Sealed Beam Headlamp Assembly, vdth the 
following exceptions: 

(1) Sections 2.2, 2.3, 4, 6.3 and 6.5 

(2) In place of Sections 6.3 and 6.5, the following 
requirements shall be met: 

(i) Retention Test. The sealed beam unit shall 
remain securly in its design position after 20 
replacements. 

(ii) Torque Deflection Test. The headlamp 
assembly to be tested shall be mounted in the 
designed vehicle position and set at nominal 



aim (0.0). A special adaptor (Figure 18) for the 
deflectometer of Figure 3 shall be clamped onto 
the headlamp assembly through the deflec- 
tometer, and a reading on the thumb wheel shall 
be taken. The torque shall be removed and a se- 
cond reading on the thumb wheel shall be taken. 
The difference between the two readings shall 
not exceed 0.30 degree. (F.R. 40979— November 
12, 1986. Effective: November 12. 1986)| 

[S4.1.1.48 The lens of each headlamp designed to 
conform with paragraph S4.1.1.47 shall be marked 
with the symbol "DOT" (either horizontally or ver- 
ticaOy) which shall constitute certification that the 
headlamp conforms to applicable Federal motor vehi- 
cle safety standards, and with one of the following 
designations as appropriate: 

(a) A lens for a headlamp, nominal size 100 x 165 
mm, incorporating an upper beam only and meeting 
the upper beam performance requirement of SAE 
J579c December 1978, Table 2, Upper Beam, shall be 
labeled IGl. 

(b) A lens for a headlamp, nominal size 100 x 165 
mm, incorporating both an upper beam and a lower 
beam meeting the performance requirements of SAE 
J579c December 1978, Table 2 Upper beam and 
Lower Beam shall be labelled 2G1. 

(c) A lens for a headlamp, nominal size 100 x 165 
mm, incorporating both an upper beam and a lower 
beam meeting the performance requirements of SAE 
J579c December 1978, Table 1 shall be labelled 2H1. 
(51 F.R. 40979— November 12, 1986. Effective: 
November 12, 1986.) 



S4.1J2. Plastic materials used for optical parts 
such as lenses and reflectors shall conform to SAE 
Recommended Prcu;tice 3576c, May 1970, except that: 

(a) Plastic lenses used for inner lenses or those 
covered by another material and not exposed 
directly to sunlight shall meet the requirements of 
paragraphs 3.4 and 4.2 of SAE J576c, when 
covered by the outer lens or other material; 

(b) After the outdoor-exposure test, the haze 
and loss of surface luster of plastic materials used 
for lamp lenses shall not be greater than 30 per- 
cent haze as measured by ASTM-1003-61, Haze 



(Rev. 11/12/86) 



PART 571; S 108-11 



and Luminous Transmittance of Transparent 
Plastics; and 

(c) After the outdoor-exposure test, plastic 
materials used for reflex reflectors shall meet the 
appearance requirements of paragraph 4.2.2 of 
SAE J576c. 



any SAE Standard or Recommended Practice 
referenced or subreferenced in this standard shall 
be read as setting forth mandatory requirements, 
except that the aiming pads on the lens face and 
the black area surrounding the signal lamp, recom- 
mended in SAE Standard J887, School Bus Red 
Signal Lamps, July 1964, are not required. 



54.1.3. No additional lamp, reflective device, or 
other motor vehicle equipment shall be installed 
that impairs the effectiveness of lighting equip- 
ment required by this standard. 

54.1.4. Each school bus shall be equipped with a 
system of either: 

(a) Four red signal lamps designed to conform to 
SAE Standard J887, School Bus Red Signal 
Lamps, July 1964, and installed in accordance with 
that standard; or 

(b) Four red signal lamps designed to conform to 
SAE Standard J887, School Bus Red Signal 
Lamps, July 1964, and four amber signal lamps 
designed to conform to that standard, except for 
their color, and except that their candlepower shall 
be at least 2V2 times that specified for red signal 
lamps. Both red and amber lamps shall be installed 
in accordance with SAE Standard J887, except 
that: 

(i) Each amber signal lamp shall be located 
near each red signal lamp, at the same level, but 
closer to the vertical centerline of the bus; and 

(ii) The system shall be wired so that the 
amber signal lamps are activated only by manual 
or foot operation, and if activated, are 
automatically deactivated and the red signal 
lamps automatically activated when the bus en- 
trance door is opened. 

54.1.5. The color in all lamps, reflective devices, 
and associated equipment to which this standard 
applies shall comply with SAE Standard J578c, 
Color Specification for Electric Signal Lighting 
Devices, February 1977. 

S4.2. Other requirements. 

S4.2.1. The words "it is recommended that," 
"recommendations^' or "should be" appearing in 



S4.2.2. The words "Type 1 (5%_)," "Type 2 
(5%_)," "Type 2 (7_)," "Type lA," "Type 2A," 
and "Type 2B" appearing in any SAE Standard or 
Recommended Practice referenced or subrefer- 
enced in this standard shall also be read as setting 
forth requirements respectively for the following 
types of headlamps: ICl, 2C1, 2D1, lAl, 2A1, and 
2B1. 

S4.3. Location of required equipment. 

S4.3.1. Except as provided in succeeding para- 
graphs of S4.3.1, each lamp, reflective device, and 
item of associated equipment shall be securely 
mounted on a rigid part of the vehicle other than 
glazing that is not designed to be removed except 
for repair, in accordance with the requirements of 
Tables I or III and in locations specified in Table II 
(multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, trailers, 
and buses 80 or more inches in overall width) and 
Table IV (all passenger cars, and motorcycles, and 
multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, trailers, 
and buses less than 80 inches in overall width), as 
applicable. 

S4.3.1.1. Except as provided in S4. 3. 1.1.1, each 
lamp and reflective device shall be located so that it 
meets the visibility requirements specified in any 
applicable SAE Standard or Recommended Prac- 
tice. In addition, no part of the vehicle shall pre- 
vent a parking lamp, taillamp, stoplamp, turn- 
signal lamp, or backup lamp from meeting its 
photometric output 

S4.3.1 .1 .1 . Clearance lamps may be mounted at a 
location other than on the front and rear if 
necessary to indicate the overall width of a vehicle, 
or for protection from damage during normal 
operation of the vehicle, and at such a location they 
need not be visible at 45 degrees inboard. 



(Rev. 11/12/86) 



PART 571; S 108-12 



S4.3.1.2. On a truck tractor, the red rear reflex 
reflectors may be mounted on the back of the cab, 
at a minimum height not less than 4 inches above 
the height of the rear tires. 



S4.3.1.3. On a trailer, the amber front side reflex 
reflectors and amber front side-marker lamps may 
be located as far forward as practicable exclusive 
of the trailer tongue. 



when viewed directly, or indirectly in the rearview 
mirror. If the lamp is mounted below the rear 
window, no portion of the lens shall be lower than 6 
inches below the rear window on convertibles, or 3 
inches on other passenger cars. 

S4.4. Equipment combinations. 

S4.4.1. Deleted 51 F.R. 28238. August 6, 1986. 



54.3.1.4. When the rear identification lamps are 
mounted at the extreme height of a vehicle, rear 
clearance lamps need not meet the requirement of 
Table II that they be located as close as practicable 
to the top of the vehicle. 

54.3.1.5. The center of the lens referred to in 
SAE Standard J593c, Backup Lamps, February 
1968, is the optical center. 



S4.5. Special wiring requirements. 

S4.5.1. Each vehicle shall have a means of 
switching between lower and upper headlamp 
beams that conforms to SAE Recommended Prac- 
tice J564a, Headlamp Beam Switching. April 1964, 
or to SAE Recommended Practice J565b, Semi- 
Automatic Headlamp Beam Switching Devices, 
February 1969. 



S4.3.1.6. On a truck tractor, clearance lamps 
mounted on the cab may be located to indicate the 
width of the cab, rather than the overall width of 
the vehicle. 



54.3.1 .7. The requirement that there be not less 
than 4 inches between a front turn-signal lamp and 
a low-beam headlamp, specified in SAE Standard 
J588e, Turn Signal Lamps, September 1970, shall 
not apply if the sum of the candlepower values of 
the turn -signal lamp measured at the test points 
within each group listed in Figure Ic is not less 
than two and one-half times the sum specified for 
each group for yellow turn-signal lamps. 

54.3.1.8. Each high-mounted stoplamp on a 
passenger car manufactured on or after 
September 1, 1985, shall be mounted with its 
center on the vertical centerline of the passenger 
car as the car is viewed from the rear. The lamp 
may be mounted at any position on the centerline, 
including the glazing. If the lamp is mounted inside 
the vehicle, means shall be provided to minimize 
reflections from the light of the lamp upon the rear 
window glazing that might be visible to the driver 



S4.5.2. Each vehicle shall have a means for in- 
dicating to the driver when the upper beams of the 
headlamps are on that conforms to SAE Recom- 
mended Practice J564a, April 1964, except that 
the signal color need not be red. 



S4.5.3. The taillamps on each vehicle shall be ac- 
tivated when the headlamps are activated in a 
steady -burning state. 



S4.5.4. The stoplamps on each vehicle shall be 
activated upon application of the service brakes. 
The high-mounted stoplamp on each passenger car 
shall be activated only upon application of the 
service brakes. 



S4.5.5. The vehicular-hazard warning-signal 
operating unit on each vehicle shall operate in- 
dependently of the ignition or equivalent switch, 
and when activated, shall cause to flash simul- 
taneously sufficient turn-signal lamps to meet, as a 
minimum, the turn-signal lamp photometric 
requirements of this standard. 



(Rev. 11/12/86) 



PART 571; S 108-13 



54.5.6. Each vehicle equipped with a turn-signal 
operating unit shall also have an illuminated pilot in- 
dicator. Failure of one or more turn-signal lamps to 
operate shall be indicated in accordance with SAE 
Standard J588e, Turn Signal Lamps, September 
1970, except where a variable-load turn-signal 
flasher is used on a truck, bus, or multipurpose 
passenger vehicle 80 or more inches in overall width, 
on a truck that is capable of accommodating a slide-in 
camper, or on any vehicle equipped to tow trailers. 

54.5.7. On all passenger cars, and motorcycles, 
and multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and 
buses of less than 80 inches overall width: 

(a) When the parking lamps are activated, the 
taillamps, license plate lamps, and side-marker 
lamps shall also be activated; and 

(b) When the headlamps are activated in a steady- 
burning state, the taillamps, parking lamps, license 
plate lamps and side-marker lamps shall also be 
activated. 

54.5.8. The lower and upper beams of a 
headlamp system consisting of four lamps, each 
containing a single standardized replaceable light 
source, shall not be activated simultaneously, ex- 
cept momentarily for temporary signaling use. [On 
a motor vehicle equipped with a headlighting 
system comprising four replaceable bulb 
headlamps designed to conform to the photometry 
of Figure 15, the lamps marked "L" may be wired 
to remain permanently activated when the lamps 
marked "U" are activated. (51 F.R. 16325— May 2, 
1986. Effective: June 2, 1986.)! 

54.5.9. [The wiring harness or connector 
assembly of a replaceable bulb headlamp with two 
identical standardized replaceable light sources or 
a four-lamp replaceable bulb headlamp system 
which uses identical light sources in all four lamps 
shall be designed so that the filaments not intended 
to be used with the lens prescription in front of 
such filament shall not be illuminated. (51 F.R. 
16325— May 2, 1986. Effective: June 2, 1986.)! 

54.5.10. The filaments in a dual-filament 
standardized replaceable light source shall not be 
activated simultaneously except momentarily 
when switching between beams, or for temporary 
signaling use. 

54.5.11. The wiring requirements for lighting 
equipment in use are: 

(a) Turn signal lamps, hazard warning signal 
lamps, and school bus warning lamps shall be wired 
to flash; 



(b) High-mounted stop lamps, on passenger cars 
manufactured on or after August 1, 1984, but 
before September 1, 1986, may flash when the 
hazard warning system is activated; 

(c) Headlamps and side-marker lamps may be 
wired to flash for signalling purposes; 

(d) A motorcycle headlamp may be wired to 
allow either its upper beam or its lower beam, but 
not both, to modulate from a higher intensity to a 
lower intensity in accordance with Section S4.6; 

(e) All other lamps shall be wired to be steady- 
burning. 

S4.5.1 2. On a motor vehicle equipped with a Type 
F headlighting system, the lower beam headlamps 
(Type LF) may be wired to remain permanently ac- 
tivated when the upper beam headlamps (Type UF) 
are activated. 

S4.6. Motorcycle headlamp modulation system. 

S4.6.1. A headlamp on a motorcycle may be 
wired to modulate either the upper beam or the 
lower beam from its maximum intensity to a lesser 
intensity provided that: 

(a) The rate of modulation shall be 240 ±40 
cycles per minute. 

(b) The headlamp shall be operated at maximum 
power for 50 to 70 percent of each cycle. 

(c) The lowest intensity at any test point shall be 
not less than 17 percent of the maximum intensity 
measured at the same point. 

(d) The modulator switch shall be wired in the 
power lead of the beam filament being modulated 
and not in the ground side of the circuit. 

(e) Means shall be provided so that both the 
lower beam and upper beam remain operable in the 
event of a modulator failure. 

(f) The system shall include a sensor mounted 
with the axis of its sensing element perpendicular 
to a horizontal plane. Headlamp modulation shall 
cease whenever the level of light emitted by a 
tungsten filament light operating at 3000° Kelvin 
is either less than 270 lux (25 footcandles) of direct 
light for upward pointing sensors or less than 60 
lux (5.6 footcandles) of reflected hght for 
downward pointing sensors. The light is measured 
by a silicon cell type light meter that is located at 
the sensor and pointing in the same direction as 
the sensor. A Kodak Gray Card (Kodak R-27) is 
placed at ground level to simulate the road surface 
in testing downward-pointing sensors. 

(g) When tested in accordance with the test pro- 
file shown in Figure 9, the voltage drop across the 
modulator when the lamp is on at all test condi- 



<Rev. 11/12/86) 



PART 571; S 108-14 



tions for 12-volt systems and 6-volt systems shall 
not be greater than .45 volt. The modulator shall 
meet all the provisions of the standard after com- 
pletion of the test profile shown in Figure 9. 

(h) Means shall be provided so that both the 
lower and upper beam function at design voltage 
when the headlamp beam control switch is in either 
the lower or upper beam position when the 
modulator is off. 

S4.6.2. (a) Each motorcycle headlamp 
modulator not intended as original equipment, or 
its container, shall be labelled with the maximum 
wattage, and the minimum wattage, appropriate 
for its use. Additionally, each such modulator shall 
comply with S4.6.1 (a) through (g) when connected 
to a headlamp of the maximum rated power and a 
headlamp of the minimum rated power and shall 
provide means so that the modulated beam func- 
tions at design voltage when the modulator is off. 

(b) Instructions, with a diagram, shall be pro- 
vided for mounting the light sensor including loca- 
tion on the motorcycle, distance above the road 
surface, and orientation with respect to the light. 

S4.7. Replacement equipment. 

54.7.1. Each lamp, reflective device, or item of 
associated equipment manufactured to replace any 
lamp, reflective device, or item of associated equip- 
ment on any vehicle to which this standard applies, 
shall be designed to conform with this standard. 

54.7.2. Each lamp, reflective device, or item of 
associated equipment to which Section S4.7.1 ap- 
plies may be labeled with the symbol DOT, which 
shall constitute a certification that it conforms to 
applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. 

S5. Subreferenced SAE Standards and Recom- 
mended Practices. 

S5.1. SAE Standards and Recommended Prac- 
tices subreferenced by the SAE Standards and 
Recommended Practices included in Tables I and 
III and paragraphs S4.1.4 and S4.5.1 are those 
published in the 1970 edition of the SAE Hand- 
book, except that the SAE standard referred to as 
"J575" is J575e, Tests for Motor Vehicle Lighting 
Devices and Components, August 1970, for stop- 
lamps, taillamps, and turn-signal lamps designed 
to conform to SAE Standards J586c, J585d/ J585e, 
and J588e, respectively, and for high-mounted 
stoplamps designed, to conform to SAE Recom- 
mended Practice J186a. 



The reference in J585e to J245 does not apply. 
The subreferenced Standards and Recommended 
Practices for headlamps designed to conform to 
SAE Standard J579c, Sealed Beam Headlamp 
Units, December 1978, are those published in the 
1977 edition of the SAE Handbook. 

S5.2. Requirements of SAE Standards incor- 
porated by reference in this standard, other than 
J576b and J576c, do not include tests for warpage 
of devices with plastic lenses. 

S6. Tests and procedures for replaceable-bulb 
headlamps. When tested according to the pro- 
cedures below, each replaceable -bulb headlamp 
shall meet the requirements of S4.1.1.36.(b) and 
(d). 

56.1. Photometry. |A replaceable bulb 
headlamp shall be tested according to paragraph 
S3. 5, Photometric Design Requirements, and 
Table 1 of SAE Standard J579c Sealed Beam 
Headlamp Units for Motor Vehicles, Dec. 1978, or 
by Figure 15 or 17 of Standard 108, as applicable, 
after the tests specified in S6.2, S6.4, S6.6, S6.7.1, 
S6.7.2 and S6.8. (51 F.R. 16325— May 2, 1986. Effec- 
tive: June 2, 1986.)! 

56.2. Abrasion, (a) A headlamp shall be 
mounted in the abrasion-test fixture in the manner 
indicated in Figure 5 with the lens facing upward. 

(b) An abrading pad meeting the requirements 
in paragraph (c) (1) through (c) (4) of this section 
shall be cycled back and forth (1 cycle) for 1 1 cycles 
at 4 ± 0.8 in. (10 cm ± 2 cm) per second over at least 
80 percent of the lens surface, including all the 
area between the upper and lower aiming pads, but 
not including lens covers and edges. 

(c) (1) The abrading pad shall be not less than 
1.0 ±.04 in. (2.5 cm±.l cm) wide, constructed of 
0000 steel wool, and rubber cemented to a rigid 
base shaped to the same vertical contour of the 
lens. The "grain" of the pad shall be perpendicular 
to the direction of motion. 

(2) The abrading-pad support shall be equal in 
size to the pad and the center of the support sur- 
face shall be within + .08 in. ( + 2 mm) of parallel 
to the lens surface. 

(3) The density of the abrading pad shall be 
such that when the pad is mounted to its support 
and is resting unweighted on the lens, the base of 
the pad shall be no closer than .125 in. (3.2 mm) 
to the lens at its closest point. 



(Rev. 11/12/86) 



PART 571; S 108-15 



(4) When mounted on its support and resting 
on the lenfe of the test headlamp, the abrading 
pad shall then be weighted such that a pad 
pressure of 2.0 ± .15 psi (14 ± 1 KPa) exists at the 
center and perpendicular to the face of the lens. 

(d) A pivot shall be used if it is required to follow 
the contour of the lens. 

(e) Unused steel wool shall be used for each test. 

56.3. Vibration. A vibration test shall be con- 
ducted according to the procedures in SAE Stand- 
ard J575e, Tests for Motor Vehicle Lighting Devices 
and Components, August 1970, and those set forth 
in paragraphs (a) through (c) of this section. 

(a) The table on the adapter plate is of sufficient 
size to contain completely the test-fixture base 
with no overhang. 

(b) The direction of vibration is the vertical axis 
of the headlamp as mounted on the vehicle. 

(c) The filament is cold (not energized). 

56.4. Chemical resistance, (a) The entire ex- 
terior lens surface of the fixtured headlamp and 
top surface of the lens-reflector joint shall be wiped 
once to the left and once to the right with a 6-inch- 
square soft cotton cloth (with pressure equally ap- 
plied) which has been saturated once in a container 
with 2 ounces of one of the test fluids listed in 
paragraph (b) of this section. The lamp shall be 
wiped within 5 seconds after removal of the cloth 
from the test fluid. 

(b) The test fluids are: 

(1) gasoline— unleaded 89 octane ( ^ + ^) or 

2 
above used per OSHA Std. 29 CFR 1910-106- 
Handling Storage and Use of Flammable Com- 
bustible Liquids. 

(2) tar remover (petroleum base with Xylene). 

(3) power steering fluid. 

(4) windshield washer fluid consisting of 0.5% 
monoethanolamine with the remainder 50% con- 
centrations of methanol /distilled water by 
volume. 

(5) antifreeze (50% concentration of ethylene 
glycol /distilled water by volume). 

(c) After the headlamp has been wiped with the 
test fluid, it shall be stored in designed operating 
attitude for 48 hours at a temperature of 73°F ± 7° 
(23°C + 4°) and a relative humidity of 30 ±10 per- 



cent. At the end of the 48-hour period, the head- 
lamp shall be wiped clean with a soft dry cotton 
cloth and visually inspected. 

56.5. Corrosion, (a) A connector test shall be 
performed on each filament circuit prior to the test 
in subparagraph (b) according to Figure 1 of SAE 
Standard J580, [AUG 79 Sealed Beam Headlamp 
Assembly]. The power source shall be set to pro- 
vide 12.8 volts and the resistance shall be set to 
produce 10 amperes. 

(b) The headlamp with connector attached to the 
terminals, unfixtured and in its designed operating 
attitude with all drain holes, breathing devices or 
other designed openings in their normal operating 
positions, shall be subjected to a salt spray (fog) 
test in accordance with ASTM B117-73, Method of 
Salt Spray (FOG) Testing, for a period of 240 
hours, consisting of 10 successive 24-hour inter- 
vals. During each interval, the headlamp shall be 
mounted in the middle of the chamber and exposed 
for 23 hours to the salt spray. The spray shall not 
be activated for the 24th hour. The bulb shall be 
removed from the headlamp and from the test 
chamber during the one hour of salt spray deac- 
tivation and reinserted for the start of the next 
test cycle, at the end of the first and last three 
23-hour periods of salt spray exposure, and at the 
end of any two of the fourth through seventh 23- 
hour periods of salt-spray exposure. The test 
chamber shall be closed at all times except for a 
maximum of two minutes which is allowed for 
removal or replacement of a bulb during each 
cycle. After the ten cycles, the lens reflector unit 
without the bulb shall be immersed in deionized 
water for five minutes, then secured and allowed 
to dry by natural convection only. 

(c) Using the voltage, resistance and pretest 
setup of subparagraph (a), the current in each fila- 
ment circuit shall be measured after the test con- 
ducted in subparagraph (b). 

56.6. Dust. The headlamp, mounted on a test 
fixture, with all drain holes, breathing devices or 
other designed openings in their normal operating 
positions, shall be positioned within a cubical box, 
with inside measurements of 35.4 in. (900 mm) on 
each side, or larger if required for adequate wall 
clearance, i.e., a distance of at least 5.9 in. (150 
mm) between the headlamp and any wall of the 
box. The box shall contain 9.9 lb. (4.5 kg) of fine 
powdered cement which conforms to the ASTM 
C 150-77 Specification for Portland Cement. Every 
15 minutes, the cement shall be agitated by com- 



(Rev. 1in2;86) 



PART 571; S 108-16 



pressed air or fan blower(s) by projecting blasts of air 
for a 2-second period in a downward direction so that 
the cement is diffused as uniformly as possible 
throughout the entire box. This test shall be con- 
tinued for 5 hours, after which the exterior surfaces 
of the headlamp shall be wiped clean. 

S6.7. Temperature and internal heat tests. A 

headlamp with one or more standardized 
replaceable light sources shall be tested according 
to S6.7.1 and S6.7.2. Tests shall be made with all 
filaments lighted at design voltage that are intended 
to be used simultaneously in the headlamp and 
which in combination draw the highest total 
wattage. These include but are not limited to 
filaments used for turn signal lamps, fog lamps, 
parking lamps, and headlamp lower beams lighted 
with upper beams when the wiring harness is so 
connected on the vehicle. If a turn signal is included 
in the headlamp assembly, it shall be operated at 90 
flashes a minute with a 75 ± 2% current "on time". 
If the lamp produces both the upper and lower 
beam, it shall be tested in both the upper beam 
mode and the lower beam mode under the condi- 
tions above described, except for a headlamp with 
a single HBl light source. 

56.7.1. Temperature cycle. A headlamp 
mounted on a headlamp test fixture shall be sub- 
jected to 10 complete consecutive cycles having the 
thermal cycle profile shown in Figure 6. During the 
hot cycle, the lamp shall be energized commencing 
at point "A" of Figure 6 and de-enerigized at point 
"B." Separate or single test chambers may be used 
to generate the environment of Figure 6. All drain 
holes, breathing devices or other openings or vents 
of the headlamp shall be in their normal operating 
positions. 

56.7.2. Internal Heat Test, (a) The headlamp 
lens surface that would normally be exposed to 
road dirt shall be uniformly sprayed with any 
appropriate mixture of dust and water or other 
appropriate materials to reduce the photometric 
output at the tt-V test point of the upper beam (or 
the V2D-I V2R test point of the lower beam as 
appropriate) to 25 ±2% of the output originally 
measured in the photometric test performed under 
S4. 1.1. 36(b). A headlamp with a single HBl light 
source shall be tested on the upper beam only. 
Such reduction shall be determined under the same 
conditions as that of the original photometric 
measurement. 



(b) After the determination has been made that 
the photometric output of the lamp has been reduced 
as specified in S6.7.2(a), the lamp and its mounting 
hardware shall be mounted in an environmental 
chamber in a manner similar to that indicated in 
Figure 7, Dirt/Ambient Test Setup. The headlamp 
shall be soaked for one hour at a temperature of 
95-1-7-0 degrees F (35-h4-0 degrees C) and then 
the lamp shall be energized according to S6.7 for one 
hour in a still air condition, allowing the temperature 
to rise from the soak temperature. 

(c) The lamp shall be returned to a room ambient 
temperature of 73-1-7-0 degrees F (23 -(-4-0 
degrees C) and a relative humidity of [30] ± 10% 
and allowed to stabilize to the room ambient 
temperature. The lens shall then be cleaned. 

56.8. Humidity. The headlamp mounted on a 
test fixture shall be placed in a controlled en- 
vironment consisting of a temperature of 
100-1-7-0 degrees F (38 -i-4-O degrees C) with a 
relative humidity of not less than 90%. All drain 
holes, breathing devices, and other designed open- 
ings shall be in their normal operating positions. 
The headlamp shall be subjected to 20 consecutive 
6-hour test cycles. In each cycle, it shall be energized 
at design voltage with the highest combination of 
filament wattages that are intended to be used, 
including a turn signal flashing at 90 flashes a 
minute with a 75 ±2% current "on-time, if so 
equipped, and then de-energized for 5 hours. After 
completion of the last cycle, the lamp shall be soaked 
for 1 hour at 73 -t- 7-0 degrees F [231-1-4-0 
degrees C) and relative humidity of [30] ± 10% 
before it is removed for photometric testing. The 
headlamp shall be tested for photometries at 10 ± 1 
minute following completion of the humidity test. 

56.9. Impact. The headlamp shall be rigidly 
mounted in a headlamp test fixture on the seating 
lugs with the mechanical axis (bulb /socket axis) 
vertical, and the lens upward. The seating plane of 
the test fixture shall consist of oak wood 0.5 inch 
(13 mm) thick. One impact shall be delivered to the 
center of the lens on the mechanical axis, using a 
steel ball bearing with a diameter of .9055 in. (23 
mm) weighing 1.76 oz. (50 gm), dropped freely 
from a distance of 15.75 in. (40 cm) from the 
bottom of the ball to the surface of the lens, at the 
intersection of the ball trajectory and the 
mechanical axis of the headlamp. 



(Rev. 11/12/86) 



PART 571; S 108-17 



S7. Deflection test for standardized replaceable 
light sources, [(a) Type HBl light source. With 
the light source rigidly mounted in a fixture in a 
manner indicated in Figure 8, apply a force of 
4.0 ±0.1 pounds (17.8±0.4N) at a distance "A" 
from the reference plane perpendicular to the 
longitudinal axis of the glass capsule and parallel 
to the smallest dimension of the pressed glass 
capsule seal. The force application shall be applied 
using a rod with a hard rubber tip with a minimum 
spherical radius of 0.039 in (1 mm). The bulb deflec- 
tion shall be measured at the glass capsule surface 
at 180 degrees opposite to the force application. 

(b) Type HB3 and HB^ light sources. The deflec- 
tion test is conducted according to paragraph (a), 
except that the force shall be applied radially to the 
surface of the glass capsule in four locations in a 
plane parallel to the reference plane and spaced at 
a distance "A" from that plane. These force ap- 
plications shall be spaced 90 degrees apart starting 
at the point perpendicular to the smallest dimen- 



sion of the pressed seal of the glass capsule. (51 
F.R. 16325— May 2, 1986. Effective: June 2, 1986.)] 

S8. Photometry Test for Simultaneous Aim, Type 
F Headlamps. The assembly shall be located on a 
goniometer placed not less than 60 feet (18.3 m) 
from the photometer. The LF unit shall be aimed 
mechanically by centering the unit on the 
photometer axis and aligning the aiming plane of 
the lens perpendicular to the photometer axis. 
Then the assembly shall be moved in a plane 
parallel to the established aiming plane of the LF 
headlamp until the UF headlamp is centered on the 
photometer axis. Photometry measurements of the 
UF photonietry unit shall be completed using the 
aiming plane so established. A realm tolerance' of 
± V4 degree is allowed for any test point. 



35 F.R. 16842 
October 31, 1970 



(Rev. 11/12/86) 



PART 571; S 108-18 



TABLE I.-REQUIRED MOTOR VEHICLE LIGHTING EQUIPMENT- 
MULTIPURPOSE PASSENGER VEHICLES, TRUCKS, TRAILERS, AND BUSES, OF 80 OR MORE INCHES 

OVERALL WIDTH 



Item 
Column 1 



Multipurpose passenger vehicles, 

trucks and buses 

Column 2 



Trailers Applicable SAE standards 

or recommended practice ' 
Column 3 Column 4 



Headlamps . 



2 white 7-inch Type 2 headlamp units; None . 

or 2 white 5%-inch Type 1 headlamp 
units and 2 white 5%-inch Type 2 
headlamp units; or 2 white Type 2A 
headlamp units and 2 white Type lA 
headlamp units. 
2 white headlamps: Type 2B1 or Type 2D1; 
or 4 white headlamps: 2 each Type ICl 
and Type 2C1, or Type lAl and Type 
2A1. 



J580a, June 1966; J579a, 
August 1965, J571d, 
June 1976 and J566, 
January 1960. 



[J580, August 1979] 
J579C, December [1978] 
J571d, June 1976; 
J1132, January 1976 



Taillamps " _ . 


2 red 


2 red 


J585e, September 1977 










Stoplamps ^ 


2 red 


2 red 


J586c, August 1970 










License-plate lamp ' . . 


1 white . _ . . 


1 white 


.. . J587, October 1981 






Reflex reflectors 


4 red; 2 amber . . .. . 


. 4 red; 2 amber . 


J594f, January 1977 






Side-marker lamps 


4 red; 2 amber 


2 red; 2 amber 


_ J592e, July 1972 


- 








Backup lamp ' 


1 white 


None 


J593c, February 1968 






Turn-signal lamps ^ 


2 red or amber; 2 amber 


2 red or amber. 


J588e, September 1970 






Turn signal operating unit. ^ 


1 — _ _ 


None 


J589, April 1964 








Turn-signal flasher 




None 


J590b, October 1965 


Vehicular hazard-warning 
signal operating unit 




None 


J910, January 1966 


Vehicular hazard warning 




, None 


__ J945, February 1966 


signal flasher 






Identification lamps ._ _ 


3 amber; 3 red 


3 red _ _ 


_ . J592e, July 1972 










Clearance lamps 


2 amber; 2 red 


2 amber; 2 red 


. _ J592e, July 1972 










Intermediate side-marker 


2 amber 


2 amber 


J592e, July 1972 


lamps. * 






Intermediate side reflex 


2 amber ._ . 


2 amber 


J594f, January 1977 


reflectors * 









* See S5 for subreferenced SAE materials. 

1 See S4.1. 1.10. ^ SeeS4. 1.1. 11-12. ' See S4.5.6. 



«SeeS4.1.1.3. 



PART 571; S 108-19 



TABLE II.-LOCATION OF REQUIRED MOTOR VEHICLE LIGHTING EQUIPMENT 
MULTIPURPOSE PASSENGER VEHICLES, TRUCKS, TRAILERS, AND BUSES, OF 80 OR MORE INCHES 

OVERALL WIDTH 



Location on- 



Item 
Colunin 1 



Multipurpose passenger vehicles, 

trucks, and buses 

Column 2 



Trailers 
Column 3 



Height above road 
surface measured from 

center of item on 

vehicle at curb weight 

Column 4 



Headlamps |0n the front, each headlamp providing 

the upper beam, at the same height, 1 
on each side of the vertical centerline, 
each headlamp providing the lower 
beam, at the same height, 1 on each 
side of the vertical centerline, as far 
apart as practicable. If a single stand- 
ardized replaceable light sources is 
used to provide the lower beam in a 
headlamp with two standardized re- 
placeable light sources, it shall be the 
farthest one from the vertical center- 
line.! * 



Not required . 



Not less than 22 inches 
(55.9 cm) nor more 
than 54 inches 
(137.2 cm) 



Taillamps On the rear, 1 on each side of the 

vertical centerline, at the same 
height, and as far apart as practi- 
cable 



On the rear, 1 on each side of the 
vertical centerline, at the same 
height, and as far apart as practi- 
cable 



Not less than 15 
inches, nor more 
than 72 inches 



Stoplamps On the rear, 1 on each side of the 

vertical centerline, at the same 
height, and as far apart as practi- 
cable 



On the rear, 1 on each side of the 
vertical centerline, at the same 
height, and as far apart as practi- 
cable 



Not less than 15 
inches, nor more 
than 72 inches 



License-plate At rear license plate, to illuminate 

lamp. the plate from the top or sides 



At rear license plate to illuminate 
the plate from the top or sides 



No requirement 



Backup lamp On the rear Not required . 



No requirement 



Turn-signal At or near the front— 1 amber on 

lamps. each side of the vertical centerline, 

at the same height, and as far 
apart as practicable. 
On the rear— 1 red or amber on each 
side of the vertical centerline, at 
the same height, and as far apart 
as practicable 



On the rear— 1 red or amber on each 
side of the vertical centerline, at 
the same height, and as far apart 
as practicable 



Not less than 15 
inches, nor more 
than 83 inches 



Identification On the front and rear— 3 lamps, 

lamps amber in front, red in rear, as 

close as practicable to the top of 
the vehicle, at the same height, 
as close as practicable to the 
vertical centerline, with lamp 
centers spaced not less than 6 
inches or more than 12 inches 
apart. Alternatively, the front lamps 
may be located as close as practicable 
to the top of the cab. 



(On the rear— 3 lamps as close as 
practicable to the top of the 
vehicle at the same height, as close 
as practicable to tne vertical 
centerline, with lamp centers 
spaced not less than 6 inches or 
more than 12 inches apart.) 



On the front only- 
No part of the lamp 
or mountings shall 
extend below the 
top of the vehicle's 
wmdshield 



Clearance On the front and rear— 2 amber 

lamps lamps on front, 2 red lamps on 

rear, to indicate the overall width 
of the vehicle, one on each side of 
the vertical centerline, at the same 
height, and as near the top as 

practicable 



On the front and rear— 2 amber 
lamps on front, 2 red lamps on 
rear, to indicate the overall width 
of the vehicle, one on each side of 
the vertical centerline, at the same 
height, and as near the top thereof 
as practicable 



No requirement 



Intermediate On each side— 1 amber lamp located 

side marker at or near the midpoint between 

lamps the front and rear side-marker 

lamps 



On each side— 1 amber lamp located 
at or near the midpoint between 
the front and rear side marker 
lamps 



Not less than 15 inches 



Intermediate On each side— 1 amber located at or 

side reflex near the midpoint between the 

reflectors front and rear side reflex reflectors 



On each side— 1 amber located at or 
near the midpoint between the 
front and rear side reflex reflectors 



Not less than 15 inches 
nor more than 60 
inches 



Reflex On the rear— 1 red on each side of 

reflectors the vertical centerline, as far 

apart as practicable, and at the 

same height 

On each side— 1 red as far to the 

rear as practicable, and 1 amber 

as far to the front as practicable 



On the rear— 1 red on each side of 
the vertical centerline, as far 
apart as practicable, and at the 
same height 

On each side— 1 red as far to the 
rear as practicable, and 1 amber 
as far to the front as practicable 



Not less than 15 inches 
nor more than 60 
inches 



Side marker On each side— 1 red as far to the 

lamps rear as practicable, and 1 amber 

as far to the front as practicable 



On each side— 1 red as far to the 
rear as practicable, and 1 amber as 
far to the front as practicable 



Not less than 15 inches, 
and on the rear of 
trailers not more than 
60 inches 



• 1(51 F.R. 16325-May 2, 1986. Effective: June 2, 1986)1 
(Rev. 5/2/86) PART 571; S 108-20 



TABLE III.-REQUIRED MOTOR VEHICLE LIGHTING EQUIPMENT 

ALL PASSENGER CARS AND MOTORCYCLES, AND MULTIPURPOSE PASSENGER VEHICLES, TRUCKS, 

TRAILERS, AND BUSES, OF LESS THAN 80 INCHES OVERALL WIDTH 



Passenger cars, multi- 
Item purpose passenger Trailers 
vehicles, trucks, and buses 
Column 1 Column 2 Column 3 



Motorcycles Applicable SAE standards 

or recommended practices * 
Column 4 Column 5 



Headlamps . 



2 white 7-inch Type 2 head- 
lamp units; or 2 white 5%- 
inch Type 1 heaidlamp 
units or 2 white 5%-inch 
Type 2A headlamp units; 
and 2 white Type lA 
headlamp units. 



J580a, June 1966; 
J579a, August 1965, 
J571d, June 1976 and 
J566, January 1960 



2 white headlamps: Type 
2B1 or Type 2D1; or 4 
white headlamps: 2 each 
Type ICl and Type 2C1, 
or Type lAl and Type 
2A1 



1 white 



[J580, August 1979] 
J579C, December [1978] 
J571d, June 1976; 
J1132, January 1976 

J584, April 1964 and 
J566, January 1960 



Taillamps ^ 


2 red 


2 red . . 


. Ired 


J585e, September 1977. 








Stoplamps ^ . 


2 red 


2 red 


_ Ired 


J586C, August 1970. 








High-mounted 

stoplamp 


1 red, for passenger 
only 


cars Not required 


_ Not required 


J186a, September 1977 


License-plate lamp ' 


1 white . .. . 


1 white 


1 white 


J587, October 1981. 








Parking lamps ^ 


2 amber or white 


None 


_ None 


J222, December 1970. 








Reflex reflectors 


4 red, 4 amber 


. 4 red; 2 amber_ 


3 red; 2 amber 


J594f, January 1977. 








Intermediate side 


2 amber 


2 amber 


None 


J594f, January 1977. 


reflex reflectors. ^ 






Intermediate side- 
marker lamps. ' 


2 amber 


2 amber 


None 


J592C, July 1972. 


Side-marker lamps 


2 red, 2 amber 


2 red; 2 amber 


None 


J592e, July 1972. 


Backup lamp . 


1 white 


None 


None 


J593c, February 1968. 


Turn-signal lamps ' _. 


2 red or amber; 
2 amber. 


2 red or amber. 


2 amber; 2 red or 
amber. 


J588, September 1970. 


Turn-signal 


1 - _ _ 


None 


, 1 


J589, April 1964. 


operating unit. ^ * 






Turn-signal flasher 


1 


None 


_ 1 


J590b, October 1965. 


Vehicular hazard- 


1 


None 


None 


J910, January 1966. 


warning signal 
operating unit 






Vehicular hazard- 
warning signal 
flasher 


1 


None 


None 


J945, February 1966. 



See S5 or subreferenced SAE materials. 
' See S4.1. 1.10. ^ See S4. 1.1. 11-12. 



' See S4.5.6. 



* See S4.1.1.5. 



6 See S4. 1.1.3. 



PART 571; S 108-21 



TABLE IV.-LOCATION OF REQUIRED EQUIPMENT- 
ALL PASSENGER CARS AND MOTORCYCLES, AND MULTIPURPOSE PASSENGER VEHICLES, TRUCKS, 
TRAILERS, AND BUSES, OF LESS THAN 80 INCHES OVERALL WIDTH 



Location on 



Item 
Column 1 



Passenger cars, multipurpose pas- 
senger vehicles, trucks, trailers, 
and buses 
Column 2 



Motorcycles 
Column 3 



Height above road 

surface measured 

from center of item 

on vehicle at curb 

weight 

Column 4 



Headlamps [On the front, each headlamp providing 

the upper beam, at the same height, 1 
on each side of the vertical centerline, 
each headlamp providing the lower 
beam, at the same height, 1 on each 
side of the vertical centerline, as far 
apart as practicable. If a single stand- 
ardized replaceable light source is used 
to provide the lower beam in a head- 
lamp with two standardized replace- 
able light sources, it shall be the 
farthest one from the vertical center- 
line.I • 



On the front, on the vertical center- 
line, except that if two are used they 
shall be symmetrically disposed about 
the vertical centerline 



Not less than 22 
inches (55.9 cm) nor 
more than 54 inches 
(137.2 cm) 



Taillamps On the rear— 1 on each side of the 

vertical centerline, at the same 
height, and as far apart as prac- 
ticable 



On the rear— on the vertical center- 
line except that if two are used, 
they shall be symmetrically dis- 

f)osed about the vertical center- 
ine 



Not less than 15 
inches, nor more 
than 72 inches 



Stoplamps On the rear— 1 on each side of the 

vertical centerline, at the same 
height, and as far apart as prac- 
ticable 



On the rear— on the vertical center- 
line except that if two are used, 
they shall be symmetrically dis- 
posed about the vertical center- 
line 



Not less than 15 
inches, nor more 
than 72 inches 



High-mounted On the rear, on the vertical centerline 
stoplamp [see S4.3.1.8], effective September 1, 

1985, for passenger cars only. 



Not required. 



[See S4.3.1.8] 



License-plate At rear license plate, to illuminate At rear license plate . 

lamp the plate from the top or sides 



No requirement 



Parking lamps On the front— 1 on each side of the Notrequired_ 

vertical centerline, at the same 
height, and as far apart as prac- 
ticable 



Not less than 15 
inches, nor more 
than 72 inches 



Reflex On the rear— 1 red on each side of 

reflectors the vertical centerline, at the same 

height, and as far apart as prac- 
ticable 
On each side— 1 red as far to the 
rear as practicable and 1 amber as 
far to the front as practicable 



On the rear— 1 red on the vertical 
centerline except that if two are 
used on the rear, they shall be 
symmetrically disposed about the 
vertical centerline 

On each side— 1 red as far to the 
rear as practicable, and 1 amber 
as far to the front as practicable 



Not less than 15 inches 
nor more than 60 
inches 



Backup lamp On the rear Not required. 



No requirement 



Turn-signal At or near the front— 1 amber on each 

lamps' side of the vertical centerline, at the 

same height, and as far apart as prac- 
ticable 
On the rear— 1 red or amber on each 
side of the vertical centerline, at 
the same height, and as far apart 
as practicable 



At or near the front— 1 amber on 
each side of the vertical centerline, at 
the same height, and having a mini- 
mum horizontal separation distance 
centerline of lamps) of 16 inches; mini- 
mum edge-to-edge separation distance 
between lamp and headlamp is 4 inches 

At or near the rear— 1 red or amber 
on each side of the vertical center- 
line, at the same height and having 
a minimum horizontal separation dis- 
tance (centerline to centerline of lamps) 
of 9 inches; minimum edge-to-eage 
separation distance between lamp and 
tau or stoplamp is 4 inches 



Not less than 15 inches, 
nor more than 83 
inches 



Side-marker On each side— 1 red as far to the 

lamps rear as practicable, and 1 amber 

as far to the front as practicable 



Not required Not less than 15 inches 



Intermediate On each side— 1 amber located at or 
side-marker near the midpoint between the 

lamps front and rear side-marker lamps 



Not required. 



Not less than 15 inches 



Intermediate On each side— 1 amber located at or near 

side-marker the midpoint between the front and 

reflectors rear side marker reflectors 



Not required. 



Not less than 15 inches, 
nor more than 60 
inches 



' Front turn-signal lamps not required for trailers. 

• 1(51 F.R. 16325-May 2, 1986. Effective: June 2, 1986)1 



(Rev. 5/2/86) 



PART 571; S 108-22 



'igure3: Specifications for the [Type HB 1] Standardized Replaceable Light Source 



View in Direction 
of Arrow Z 

(See Figure 3-3) 



i 




■4—^ 



V 



^ 



Plan View of Bulb 



i 



(See Figure 3-3) 




Front End View of Bulb 



Side Sectional View of Bulb— (Section A) 



Figure 3-1. Interchangeability Drawing of Headlamp Bulb Assembly 

[Note: Unless otherwise specified, a general tolerance of =004 in. (0.10mm) shall apply to all linear dimensions and 
± 1% shall apply to all angular dimensions specified In Fig. 3 (48 F.R. 44815— September 30, 1983. Effective: 
September 30, 1983.)] 



5/2/86) 



PART 571; S 108-23 



(See reverse page for 
dimensional specifications) 



Dimension 


Inches 








Millimeters 


A 




.085 to 


.083 .002 either side CL 


2.15 to 2.10 .05 either side CL 


F 




.906 








23.00 




H 




.079 








2.00 




K: low 1 
high 


beam 
beam 


1.752 ± .015 

CL high beam to be within 
of CL of low beam 


± 0.35 


44.50 ± 


:0.38 


M 




.974 








24.75 




N 




(1.335 to 1.331) 


.002 either : 


side CL 


(33.90) to (33.80) 0.05 either side CL 







.517 ± 


.020 






13.13 ± 


: .050 


P 




1.673 








42.50 




R 




(1.126 to 1.122) 


.002 either side CL 


(28.60 to 28.50) .05 either side CL 


U 




1.181 








30.00 




V 




.413 








10.50 




W 




.128 








3.25 




X 




.189 








4.80 




AC 




.045 ± 


.020 






1.15 ± 


.50 


AD 




.091 ± 


.028 






2.30 ± 


.70 


AE 




.047 ± 


.020 






1.20 ± 


.50 


AF 




.094 ± 


.032 






2.40 ± 


.80 


AH 




.356 








9.05 




AM 




.415 








10.54 




AN 




.673 








17.10 





Note: These specifications effective November 3, 1986. 



Figure 3-2. Dimensional Specifications for Figure 3-1 



(Rev. 5/2/86) 



PART 571; S 108-24A 



High Beam 



Low Beam 




View Z — From Bulb End 




Constant 



Terminals Must be Perpendicular 
To Base and Parallel Within ± 1.5° 



View Y — From Connector End 



Figure 3-3. Bulb End and Connector End 



PART 571; S 108-25 



(See reverse page for 
dimensional specifications) 



Dimension Inches iVIillimeters 

A A 120° 120° 

AB 120» 120° 

AC .197 5.0 

AD 44° 30° 44° 30° 

AE .722 18.35 

AF 120<» 120° 

AG 150« 150° 

AJ .138 3.50 

A 1.024 26.00 

B .289 ± .010 7.35 ± .25 

C .289 ± .010 7.35 ± .25 

D .055 1.40 

E .059 1.50 

F .278 7.05 

G .059 1.50 

J .142 ± .010 3.60 ± .25 

K .807 20.50 

L .531 R 13.50 R 

M .118 3.00 

R .075 ± .010 1.90 ± .2f 

S .025 ± .002 .63 ± .25 

U .222 R 5.65 R 



Figure 3-4. (Continued). Dimensionai Specifications 

PART 571; S 108-26 



Cl of Undistorted 
Portion of Actual Glass 
Capsule 



Capsule and Supports 
Shall not Exceed This 
Envelope 

Plane Which Passes Through 
the Center of the Actual Lower 
Beam Filament 

Actual Capsule Dia 
(To Be Established 
By Manufacturer) 



F = xx.xx ± 1.0 MM. ^\ 
G = xx.xx M M. Minimum ^^ 
H = 24.5 M M. Maximum 
J = 70.0 M M. Maximum 



Cl of Light 
Source Base 




/\ Glass Capsule Periphery Shall be Optically Distortion Free Between the Planes 
Perpendicular to the Centerline at Points P and R. 

^\ Diameter "H" Shall be Concentric with the Centerline 
of the Light Source Base. 

/3\. Exact Values of F and G Shall be Determined by Using the Following: 
F = (N/2) Tan 38 

G= (N/2) Tan 43 

^\ Entire Radius and Distorted Glass Shall be Covered to the Plane 

Passing Through Point "P", Perpendicular to the Glass Capsule Centerline. 

Figure 3-5. Halogen Capsule 



PART 571; S 108-27-28 




15 Micro-inch Finish on These 
Surfaces Max All Around 



Low Beam Filament Shown at 
Focal Point of Paratx)la (Ref) 



Side View-Rotated 90 




Bottom View 



SCALE 1:1 



Side View (Section A) 



Figure 3-7. Socket (in reflector) 



PART 571; S 108-29 



(See reverse page for 
dimensional specifications) 



Specifications 
Dimension 



Inches 


i 




Millimeters 


Ref Line Lamp Parabola 


Ref Line Lamp Parabola 


.079 ± 


.002 + 


.002 Either side of CL 


2.00 ± .05 .05 Either Side of CL 


.502 






12.75 


120» 






1200 


150" 






150» 


.079 






2.00 


.596 






15.15 


.433 






11.00 


.374 






9.50 


.108 






2.75 



B 
C 
D 

E 
F 
G 
H 
J 
K 
L 
N 
P 
R 



(1 .350 to 1 .346 ) .002 Either Side of CL (34.30 to 34.20) .05 Either side of CL 
(1.132 to 1.128) .002 Either side of CL (28.75 to 28.65) .05 Either side of CL ] 
.045 1.15 



Figure 3-8. Dimensional Specifications 



PART 571; S 108-30 



(b 



V 



Sectional View of "0" Ring (Sec. A) 




No Flash Permissible 
in These Areas 

See Sec. A 




Enlarged View of Sec. A 



End View of "0" Ring 



Dimensions 
A 
B 



Inches 
1.109 ± .012 
.139 ± .004 



Millimeters 
28.17 ± 0.30 
3.53 ± 10 



Figure 3-9. '0' Ring 



PART 571; S 108-31-32 




•- AC 



Exploded View W Four Times Size 



Must Be Free of Flash 




Exploded View of Locking Feature 
Figure 3-10. Exploded Views 



Letter 


Inches 


Millimeters 


AC 


.179 


4.55 


AD 


30° 


30° 


AG 


.098 


2.50 


AK 


35° 


35° 


AM 


.217 


5.50 


AN 


.157 


4.00 



Figure 3-11. Dimensional Specifications 



PART 571; S 108-33-34 




m 



Q. 

E 

ca 

eg 
« 
X 



o> 


3 


C <D 
O -1 


OQ 




9 


«^ 


z 


O -Q 


CO 


O (0 


s 


-• 0) 
0) 3 


o 

CO 


0=0 


a 

9 


S< 


CL 


Q © 


C 


£1 


o 


iming 
.fort 


(A 

TJ 
CD 
Ol 


< S 


a> 


— c 


c 


o S 


E 


«C0 




< 


•F, <» 


o 


(J «w 




0) (0 


c 


SE 


5 



CO 

8 



(0 

c 
o 

CO 

u 



(0 

CO 

c 
o 
(0 

c 
o 

E 



I 

£ 

3 
O) 



(R«v. S/22/85) 



PART 571; S 108-35-36 



Aiming Plane 



Lens Surface 




H/V Axis 



Figure 4-2. Detail Exampie of Aiming Pad 



PART 571; S 108-37-38 




Center of Aiming Pattern 



Plan View 
NOTES 

• Group I or Group II aiming pad locations may be used 

• Group I aiming pad location (front view) is that prescribed for 2B1 sealed beam units. 

• Group II aiming pad location |front view) is that prescribed for 1A1 2A1 sealed beam units 

Figure 4-3. Specifications for Location of Aiming Pads on Repiaceable Bulb 

(50 F.R. 21052. May 22. 1985. Effective: May 15, 1985) 



Dimension 



Millimeters 



Inches 



A 
B 
C 
D 
E 



42.16 ± 0.25 

60.05 ± 1.00 

64.0 ± 1.00 

68.58 ± 0.51 



1.660 ± 0.010 

2.364 ± 0.039 

2.520 ± 0.039 

2.700 ± 0.020 



Mechanical aiming device locating plate setting for the 
vertical adjustable leg. 

Mechanical aiming device locating plate setting for the 
horizontal adjustable leg. 



Figure 4-4. Dimensionai Specifications 



(R*v. S/22/85) 



PART 571; S 108-39-40 



Abrading 
Mechanism 







Headlamp 



Holding Fixture 



Figure 5. Abrasion Test Fixture 



PART 571; S 108-41-42 



Ambient Temperature Transition Rates: 

Minimum 0.6'C (1 'F) Per Minute 

Maximum 4'C (8'F) Per Minute 



UJ 

oc 

D 

< 
OC 
Ui 

a. 



- 120 




(48.9»C) 



u. 



UJ 
OC 

cc 

2 



-30 
{-34.4»C) 



Note: Ambient Conditions /a'F ± 7»(23"C ± 4) and 30 ± 10% RH. 



Figure 6. Thermal Cycle Profile 



PART 571; S 108-43-44 




Target 
Circulating Fan 



Headlamp With Mounting 
Hardware (Backside) 



2' Urethane Insulation Block Box 

(Inside Dimensions 36L, x I24W1V x 12H) 

(Shown Cut Away With Top Cover Removed) 



<ttov. Sr22/«5) 



Figura 7. Dirt/Ambient Test Setup 

|50 F.R. 21052-May 22, 1985. Effective: May 15, 1985| 

PART 571; S 108-45-46 



Force Applied to 
Glass in Direction 
of Arrow 



Smallest Dimension 

of the Pressed Glass Seal of the 

Glass Capsule 




Point of 

Defection 

Measurement 



Reference Plane 



Bulb Base Rigidly Mounted 
to Fixture 



Standardized Replaceable 
Light Source Type 



Dimension 

"A" 



HB1 

HB3 
HB4 



44.50 ± 0.38 MM (1.75 ± 0.015 In) 

31.50 ± 0.20 MM (1.24 ± 0.008 In) 
31.50 ± 0.20 MM (1.24 ± 0.008 In) 



Figure 8 - Bulb Deflection Test 



PART 571; S 108-47-48 








2 

a. 


o 




(0 

»- 

c 
a> 


in 




F 


C) 




c 

s 




^-^ 


c 




en 


UJ 


o 


fc— 




ro 


I 


>. 




' — ' 


4— 




<D 


■a 




t 


E 

3 


un 




X 


CM 




S 


o 




a 


C\J 




|2 


m 




o> 






2! 

3 

il 



: u- ^? X o ^ 6-° =c 

ID O CC ^ in O CC 

CO Tj 1- C\J c\J CD 

to ^ "^ ^ ^ 

— — ' oO 



u. O 


^ o 


O CO 

1 


' 7 



(%) oinH laa puB (jj ejniBjadujai 



PART 571; S 108-49-50 



See page PART 571: S 108-10 
for Figure 10 



PART 571 S 108-51-52 



A\ All Terminal Indents 
(Option Holes) to be 
Located as Shown 



LF to Appear Manufacturing Locating Plane- 

Approximately 
as Shown-, P- 

M- 



This Area to 
Be Free of 
Pads 4 Places- 




Letter 


Inch 


MM 




Letter 


Inch 


MM 


A 
B 
C 


63.0 ± 3.94 


150.50!] -20 
92.50 - 1.20 
1600.0 ±100.0 


R 
S 

T 


.41 Min. 
.15+ .010 
.41 ± .010 


10.5 Min. 
3.8 ± 0.30 
10.43 ± 0.30 


D 


23.6 ± 1.97 


600.0 ± 50.0 




U 


.024 Min. 


0.60 Min. 


E 


63.0 ± 3.94 


1600.0 ± 100.0 




V 


.31 5 Max. 


8.0 Max. 


F 


23.8 ± 1.97 


600.0 ± 50.0 




w 


Radius 


Radius 


G 


.787 ± .010 


20.00 ± 0.30 




X 


.032 ± .002 


0.82 ± 0.04 


H 


2.16 ± .010 


55.0 ± 0.30 




Y 


.110 ± .004 


2.80 ±0.10 


J 


2.16 ± .010 


55.0 ± 0.30 




z 


104 ± .010 


2.65 ± 0.30 


K 

L 
M 


5.689 -gSE 
3.252 t .008 

.46 Max. 


144.50 - 0.20 
82.60 10.20 
11. 7 Max. 




AA 
AB 
AC 


.051 ± .010 DIa. 
.56 ± .020 
.295 Max. 


1.30 ±0.30 DIa. 
14.3 ±0.50 
7.50 Max. 


N 


3. 19 Max. 


81.0 Max. 




AD 


1.77 


45.0 


P 


2.87 Max. 


73.0 Max. 




AE 
AF 
AG 
AH 
AJ 


.63 

.13 ± .02 
5°± 1° 
.24 ± .02 
63 Min. 


16.0 
3.2 ± 0.5 

5°± 1° 
6.0 ± 0.5 
16.0Min. 



Figure 11. Type LF Rectangular Sealed Beam Headlamp Unit 

PART 571; S108-53-54 



UF to Appear Approximately as Shown 







Corner for Indexing 




r7.6 ± 0.30(30 ± .010) 
(Terminal Centers) 



=^ 



Aiming and Seating Plane 



Note: Same as Type LF Except as Shown (.xx) Inch Dim. 



Figure 12. Type UF Rectangular Sealed Beam Headlamp Unit 

PART 571; S 213-55-56 



Ref. ZC 2 Places 




CRef. 

Locater 
2 Places 



ForTypeUFUnit 



C 3 Places 



Mounting Ring 



Letter 


Inch 


MM 


A 
B 
C 


5.433 t -'oil 
.315 ± .02 


138.00+0.30 
80.00 + 0.30 
8.0 ±0.5 


D 


45° 3 Places 


45° 3 Places 


E 


5.63 ± .010 


143.0 ±0.30 


F 


3.307 ± .010 


84.00 ± 0.30 


G 


2.79 ± .12 


71.0 ±3.0 


H 


.32 ± .04 


8.0 ± 1.0 


J 


.39 ± .04 


10.0 ± 1.0 


K 


.17 ± .07 


4.3 ± 1.7 


L 


.24 ± .04 


6.0 ± 1.0 


M 


1.823 ±013 


46.30 ± 0.30 



Figure 13. Front View of Keys of Locators for Type LF and UF 

Rectangular Sealed Beam Headlamp Unit Mounting Rings 

PART 571; S108-57-58 



i 




Aiming and Seating Plane 



Aiming Ring 



Letter 


Inch 


MM 


A 


5.721 - .006 


145.30 ± 0.30 


B 


3.284 ± .006 


83.40 = 0.30 


C 


.213Min, 


5.40 MIn. 


D 


.670 Max. 


17.00 Max 


E 


23.7 ± 2.0 


602.2 = 50.0 


F 


63.0 - 3,93 


1600.0 ± 100.0 


G 


.134 Mm. 


3.40 MIn. 



Figure 14. Aiming/Seating Ring for Type LF and 

UF Rectangular Sealed Beam Headlamp Units 



PART 571; S 213-59-60 



UPPER BEAM 


LOWER BEAM 


Test Points 


cd. 


cd. 


Test Points 


cd. 


cd. 


deg 


max. 


min. 


deg 


max. 


min. 


2U-V 


_ 


1,500 


10U-90U 


125 





1U-3R and 3L 


— 


5,000 


1U-1-1/2L to L 


700 


— 


H-V 


70,000 


40,000 


1/2U-1-1/2L to L 


1,000 


— 








1/2D-1-1/2L to L 


3,000 


— 


H-3R and 3L 





15,000 








H-6R and 6L 


— 


5,000 


1/2U-1R to 3R 


2,700 


— 


H-9R and 9L 


— 


3,000 


1/2D-1-1/2R 


20,000 


10,000 


H-12R and 1 2L 


— 


1,500 


1D-6L 


— 


1,000 








1-1/2D-2R 


— 


15,000 


1-1/2D-V 





5,000 


1-1/2D-9L and 9R 


— 


1,000 


1-1/2D-9R and 9L 


— 


2,000 


2D-15L and 1 5R 


— 


850 


2-1/2D-V 


— 


2,500 


4D-4R 


12,500 


— 


2-1/2D-12R and 1 2L 


— 


1,000 








4D-V 


5,000 


— 


4D-V 


7,000 


— 








H-V 


5,000 





Figure 15. Photometric Test Point Values 



PART 571; S 108-61-62 




o yrt s ~ ^ 

=■ f^ ?, S £ 

"^ <D ^ ,^ ^n t' 

^ m o 8 ° _ 

iD y >. < o o 

00 m c w -c ^ 

O 3 £ => S t^ 

in 5 CO 5 S ra 



o 




















E 


in 




















■^ 




















r 


X 












03 








' 


CVJ 












m 










O) 












Q. 








•? 











> 




b 








5 


L. 




















CM 


3 








LU 




(0 
O 








O 


X 








fe 


















a 

E 

TO 

u 


1- 


Q. 




O 

Lf) 

o 




TO 

a 

E 

3 

E 

T) 




CO « 


Q} 


5 




ofl 


CO 


0) 








1- 
Q. 


m 


0) 

o 

m 


< 

< 

LU 
< 
C/) 

E 




< 
en 


o 

0) 




c c 

2 5 
E 


E 
•o 


IB 

C 

o 


1 


E 
< 


c 

Q. 
CO 


55 

en 

c 

5. 
en 


LU 


si 


5 


ffl 




c 


w 


< 


O 


• 


tn 


c> 


< 


0) 

I 


03 

E 
Q 


2 


u 

• 




• 






05 

• 





iB 
a> 

E 

o 

u 

a> 

a 



to 



0) 

3 
O) 



PART 571; S 213-63-64 



■D C 

" E 



o ™ 



1 


« 




0) 


c 




CQ 


o 




k- 


D. 




0) 






$ 


w 


O) 


o 


Q) 


0) 


_I 


1- 


■o 



T3 C 
O E 



I I I I I 



■a 
o 


^ 




E 


(0 




^■^ 




c 




o 




Q. 




^^ 




« 


O) 


<1> 


0) 


1- 


•D 



o o o 

o o o 

o o o 

O -r-" lO 



lO o o o o 

CM o o o o 

■^ t^ o o ■* 

T- CO T- 



o 
o 

cm" 



*: o 



CC 

CO 



gcM^ 

3 T ^ 



Csj 



OC ii 



CC 
CM 



,- ,- ^ 3 T- 






CC 
CM 

Q 
CM 



o 
o 

I I ° 

1^ 



I I I I 



o o 
o in 

O 00 



Ml II 



o 
o 

cm" 



CC 



3 Q CD 

CM CM A ^ T- 



c 


■^ 




CD 


■o 




_J 


c 




Oi 


CO 




Q 
CM 


_l 
in 


CC 


• 


Q 


6 




CM 


•^ 



o o o 
o o o 
in o o 


o o o o 
o o o o 
o o_ o in 


o o o o 
o o o o 
o o in o 


T-" in" o" 


in" in" co" ■<-" 


in cm" cm" T-" 



I I I I 



o 
o 
o 

cm" 



E 

O 
*^ 
CO 

>> 
CO 

a 
E 

CO 

-1 

■ 

10 

9 

3 

CO 

> 



O 

o. 

CO 

o 



E 

o 

o 



a 

O) 



CM 



_l 






_l 

CM 


■D 

c to 




CO 




_l 


_l _l •>- 


CO fv 




■o 




CO 


CD O) ^ 


CC 

CC CM 




c 
CO 




■o 

c 


c c to 


> 05 > T- 




OC 
> CO 




CO 


™ ™ CC 


C3 Q Q Cb 






CC 


CC OC CM 


CM CM CM CM 


> 


3 3 


> 


CO 


CD CD T- 


T- T- ^ T- 


Q 


CM 1^ 


± 


± 


X ± ± 
PART 571; 


•A ■A Cvl CM 

S 108-65-66 


■"t 



■2GV OR 2H1 , AS 
APPROPRIATE TO 
APPEAR APPROXIMATELY 
AS SHOWN 



NOTE SAME AS TYPE 2A IN FIG 6 
OF SAE J571d EXCEPT AS SHOWN 




(2G1 & 2H1 TYPEI \f- ^5 . 1 



'A < 




NOTE MOUNTING PLANE IS SECTION 0-0 
PARALLEL TO THE AIMING 
PLANE WITHIN 010 TOTAL 



BS -s. B 




DIMENSIONS 
TYP 3 PLACES 



[ 3 >-^ i 




BO FLAT 
SECTION A-A IfOUR PLACES AT L) 



SECTION C-C 



LETTER 



IN 



LETTER 



IN 



H MAX 


3 499 i 015 


88 868 ± 381 


BA 


220 SPHERR 


5 59 SPER R 


J 


1 00 * 015 


25 40 ± 0381 


BC 


197 ± 005 


5 004 ± 127 


L 


1,25 MIN 


31 75 


BD 


040 MIN 


1 016 MIN 


P 


4 80 ± 026 


121 92 ± 660 


BG 


150 t 010 


3 81 ± 254 


S 


250 ± 0.005 


635 ± 127 


BH 


032R 


0813R 


T 


2 26 ± 0.01 


57 40 ± 25 


BJ 


720 ± 015 


18288 ± 0381 


U 


282 ± 0015 


71 60 ± 381 


BK 


125 ± 005 


3.175 ± 127 


AG 


500 ± 01 


12 70 ± 25 


BL 


062 ± 005 


1 575 ± 127 


AH 


0410 ± 0010 


10,414 ± 0254 


BM 


064 ± 004 


1 62 ± 102 


AJ 


0.42 ±0010 


10 668 ± 254 


BN 


032 ± 004 


0813 ± 102 


AR 


0.37 MIN 


9 40 MIN 


BP 


2 45 ± 015 


62 23 ± 381 


AS 


03R + 0.0 -0 03 


76R * -0 76 


BS 


178.0 181 DIA 


4 521, 4,597 DIA 


AT 


230 MIN 


5 84 MIN 


BT 


174.0 176 


4 420, 4 470 


AU 


066 ± 0040 


16 76 ± 1 02 


BU 


2 73 ± 015 


69 342 ± 381 


AV 


20 ± 01R 


508 ± 254 


BV 


2 980 ± 015 


75 692 ± 381 


AW 


1 100 ± 040 


27 94 ± 1 02 


BW 


160 ±0 01 


4 06 ± 25 



Figure 18 — Dimensional Specifications for Integral Mount 
Sealed Beam Headlamps, Types G and H 



PART 571; S 108-67-68 



Line A 




" ^ See Figure 
19-2 



GJ 
Gl 2 PLC 



(Also see continuation page) 



Figure 19 - Specifications for the Type I-IB3 Standardized 
Replaceable Light Source 



PART 571; S 108-69 



Dimension 

GA 

GB 

GC 

GD 

GE 

GF 

GG 

GH 

Gl 

GJ 

GK 

GL 

GM 

GN 

GO 

GP 

GQ 

GR 

GS 

GT 

GU 
GV 
GW 
GX 



Inches 



Millimetres 



0.591 Max/ 0.217 Min 
0.236 

45° 
0.079 
1.09 
0.165 
0.346 
0.433 
0.055 

0.217 ± 0.006 
0.06 

0.775 Dia 
2.165 
0.093 
0.157 

45° Chamfer 
0.039 

0.787 ± 0.002 Dia 
0.138 



0.687 



+0.004 
-0.000 



Dia 



15.00 Max/ 5.50 Min 
6.00 

45° 
2.00 
27.8 
4.20 
8.80 
11.00 
1.40 

5.50 ± 0.15 
1.5 

19.68 Dia 
55.00 
2.36 
4.00 

45° Chamfer 
1.00 

22.00 ± 0.05 Dia 
3.50 

^^•^^-ro>'^ 



A 
A 

A 
A 
A 

A 
A 

A 
A 

A 



0.079 
0.138 
0.209 Min 
0.378 

Dimensions Shown Are Maximum-May Be Smaller 



2.00 
3.5 

5.30 Min 
9.60 



Bulbs Must Be Equipped With a Seal The Bulb-Seal Assembly Must Withstand a Minimum 
of 69kPA (10 P S I G ) When the Assembly Is Inserted into a Cylindrical Aperture of 
22.22 ± 0.10 MM (0.875 ± 0.004 IN) 

See Figure 20-5 

Diameters Must Be Concentnc Within 20 MM (0.008 IN). 

Glass Bulb Periphery Must Be Optically Distortion Free Axially Within the Included Angles 
About Point B 

Key and Keyway Are Optional Construction Keyway Required for Aftermarket Only. 

Measured at Terminal Base. Terminals Must Be Perpendicular to Base and Parallel 

Within ±1 5° 

Diameters Must Be Concentric Within 20 MM (0 008 IN). 

Absolute Dimension, No Tolerance 

Glass Capsule and Supports Shall Not Exceed This Envelope 



Tolerances Unless 

Inches 

2 Place Decimals ± ,02 

3 Place Decimals ± 010 

Angular ± 1" 


Otherwise Specified 

Millimetres 

1 Place Decimals ± 

2 Place Decimals ± 

Angular ± 1° 


5 
030 



Figure 19 - (Continued) Specifications for the Type HB3 
Standardized Replaceable Light Source 

PART 571; S 108-70 



Plane B 



X 




^ Line A 

-CL of Undistorted 
Portion of Glass 
Tubing 

Typical Bulb 
Construction 



Point B 



Line A 



Plane B 




Undistorted 
Glass 



Side View 



Top View 



Dimension 

lA 
IB 



Point B Is Intersection of Plane B and Centerline of 
Undistorted Glass Tubing 

Inches 

45" Min 
520 Min 



Millimetres 

45° Min 
520 i^jn 



Opening for Bulb 



Two Piece Flat White Construction 
(With Snap-On Lid) 




Opening for Connector Connector Cover Used in Luminous Flux Test 



Figure 19-1 - Specifications for the Type HB3 Standardized 
Replaceable Light Source 



PART 571; S 108-71-72 



View W: from Bulb End 
HN- 




A A 



HD 2 PLC 
HE 2 PLC 



Optional Construction (View W: from Bulb End) 
HQ 3 PLC 



Plane A 
HP 3 PLC 



Dimensions 

HA 

HB 

HC 

HD 

HE 

HF 

HG 

HH 

HI 

HJ 

HK 

HL 

HM 

HN 

HO 

HP 

HQ 



R 3 PLC 





HI Z_°A ^ HH 
View X: from Connector End 



Tolerances Unless Otherwise Specified 




Inches 


Millimetres 




2 Place Decimals ± 0.02 


1 Place Decimals ± 


0.5 


3 Place Decimals ± 0.010 


2 Place Decimals ± 


0.30 


Angular ± 1° 


Angular ± 1° 





Inches 

0.787 ±0.002 Dia 

120°±0°30 

0.866 Dia 

0.394 

0.118 

0.079 

0.315 

1.181 Dia 

1.417 Dia 

3° 

30° 

0.157 

0.35 

0.079 ±0.004 

0.20 

0.030 

120° Typ 



Millimetres 

20.00 ±0.05 Dia 
120°±0°30 
22.00 Dia 
10.00 

3.00 

2.00 

8.00 
30.00 Dia 
36.00 Dia 
3° 
30° 
4.00 
8.9 

2.00 ±0.10 
5.0 
0.75 
1 20° Typ 



Figure 19-2 - Specifications for the Type HB3 Standardized 
Replaceable Light Source 



PART 571; S 108-73-74 




KM Constant KJ 



KN Constant 
KO Constant 



KH 2 PLC 




Section T-T (from Fig 19) 



Section U-U (from Fig 19) 



Dimensions 

KA 

KB 

KC 

KD 

KE 

KF 

KG 

KH 

Kl 

KJ 

KK 

KL 

KM 

KN 

KO 

KP 

KQ 

KR 

KS 



Inches 

0.384 

0.315 

0.171 

0.055 

0.343 

0.242 ±0.006 

0.484 

0.748 

0.368 ±0.006 

0.736 

0.439 ±0.006 

0.878 

0.059 

0.03 R 

0.016 R 

0.110 ±0.004 

0.024 

0.033 ±0.001 

0.039 Min 



Millimetres 

9.75 

8.00 

4.35 

1.40 

8.70 

6.15 ±0.15 

12.30 

19.00 

9.35 ±0.15 

18.70 

11.15 ±0.15 

22.30 

1.50 

0.8 R 

0.40 R 

2.8 ±0.10 

0.60 

0.83 ±0.03 

1.00 Min 



Tolerances Unless Otherwise Specified 



Inches 

2 Place Decimals ± 0.02 

3 Place Decimals ± 0.010 

Angular ± 1° 



Millimetres 

1 Place Decimals ± 

2 Place Decimals ± 

Angular ± 1° 



0.5 
0.30 



Figure 19-3 - Specifications for the Type HB3 Standardized 
Replaceable Light Source 



PART 571; S 108-75-76 




Dimensions 


Inches 


Millimetres 


JA 


0.796±0.004 Dia 


20.22±0.10 Dia 


JB 


r. .^r. +0.010 


4 36 ^°-3° 
^"^^ -0.00 


JC 


0.067 ±0.004 
+0.004 


1.70 ±0.10 
+0.10 


JD 


° 352 _o.OOO 


«-9^ -0.00 


JE 


0.236 Min 


6.00 Min 



Figure 19-4 - Specifications for the Type HB3 Standardized 
Replaceable Light Source Socket (in Reflector) 



PART 571; S 108-77-78 




\l CO CO <CT) 



CD 


















C 


















CO 


















CL 


Q) 

E 

3 

o 

> 












■o 

0) 
N 




Q) 


c 


. ■ 










V. 




x: 


r 


p 










(0 




*^ 












■D 




c 


^ 


<]_-l 


S 








C 




1 


0) 


E 

O 


CD 








(0 




•D 


CO 


> 










CO 







3 

2 


c 


t^ 








OQ 




CD 


^ 


CD 








X 




c 

O 


o 
O 


^ 


£ 








0) 




O 


ni 


^ 








Q. 


0) 






!J 


5 








1- 


3 




-i 


CO 


o 










(/) 


o 


D 


'^ 








0) 


O 


3 


c 


^ 


r 








£ 


i/i 


> 















♦* 




CO 

c\i 


O 

O 

Cl) 


o 
c 
o 
O 








o 




Z^ 


U. 




■D 








c 


_l 


o 


Q) 


o 

r 


C 
CD 

< 






CO 




0) 


e A. 
esign V 


O 

■D 

C 
LU 


3 
CD 


(D 

C 
CD 

CL 




o 
O 



E 

1 


CO 

o 
o 


<0 

u 


C Q 


(1) 


_l 


O 




c 


c 


0) 


Q. 


CD 


^ 


m 


"•"' 




CD 




a. 


0) 


to P 

)dy a 


1— 

•b 

Q) 


o 


CD 
O 


CO 


E 

_CD 

il 



< 

c 


(/) 


OC 


Paralle 
Coil Be 
Specifi 


■o 

c 
UJ 


T3 

C 
0) 
Q. 

11 


CO 




o 

0) 

•«— • 
CD 


5 

o 

CO 






en 0) 


CO 




Q. 


o 


E 


CO 

c- 


a> 




— k- 


CD 




m 


k_ 


CD 


o 


3 
O) 




0) UJ 


0) 

F 


u 

c 
m 


< 




q3 


Q 

II 
Q 


CO 

c 




i5 r 


3 
o 


fn 




c 


b 

CD 



E 


L 




CL (- 


> 




_i 


Q 


« 


b 







PART 571; S 108-79-80 



Line A 




I~ See Figure 
20-2 



See Figure 
20-2 



(Also see continuation page) 

Figure 20 - Specifications for the Type IHB4 Standardized 
Replaceable Light Source 



PART 571; S 108-81 



Dimension 

AA 

AB 

AC 

AD 

AE 

AF 

AG 

AH 

Al 

AJ 

AK 

AL 

AM 

AN 

AO 

AP 

AQ 

AR 

AS 
AT 
AU 
AV 
AW 



Inches 



Millimetres 



0.591 Max/ 0.217 Min 
0.236 

45" 
0.079 
1.09 
0.165 
0.346 
0.433 
0.055 

0.217 ± 0.006 
0.06 

0.780 Dia 
2.165 
0.093 
0.157 

45° Chamfer 
0.039 



0.766 



+0.004 
-0.000 



Dia 



15.00 Max / 5.50 Min 
6.00 

45° 
2.00 
27.8 
4.20 
8.80 
11.00 
1.40 

5.50 ± 0.15 
1.5 

19.81 Dia 
55.00 
2.36 
4.00 

45° Chamfer 
1.00 

22.00 ± 0.05 Dia 

2.00 

3.5 

5.30 Min 

9.60 



A 
A 

A 
A 
A 

A 
A 

A 
A 

A 



0.866 ± 0.002 Dia 

0.079 

0.138 

0.209 Min 

0.378 

Dimensions Shown Are Maximum-May Be Smaller 

Bulbs Must Be Equipped With a Seal The Bulb-Seal Assembly Must Withstand a Minimum 
of 69kPA (10 PS I G.) When the Assembly Is Inserted into a Cylindrical Aperture of 
22.22 ± 0.10 MM (0.875 ± 0.004 IN). 

See Figure 20-5 

Diameters Must Be Concentric Within 20 MM (0.008 IN). 

Glass Bulb Periphery Must Be Optically Distortion Free Axially Within the Included Angles 
About Point B 

Key and Keyway Are Optional Construction. Keyway Required for Aftermarket Only. 

Measured at Terminal Base. Terminals Must Be Perpendicular to Base and Parallel 

Within ±1-5°. 

Diameters Must Be Concentnc Within 20 MM (0,003 IN). 

Absolute Dimension, No Tolerance 

Glass Capsule and Supports Shall Not Exceed This Envelope 



Tolerances Unless 

Inches 

2 Place Decimals ± 02 

3 Place Decimals ± 010 

Angular ± ^° 


Otherwise Specified 

Millimetres 

1 Place Decimals ± 

2 Place Decimals ± 

Angular ± 1° 


5 
30 



Figure 20 - (Continued) Specifications for the Type HB4 
Standardized Replaceable Light Source 



PART 571; S 108-82 



CB- 



Plane B 



.L 



Line A 



-CL of Undistorted 
Portion of Glass 
Tubing 



Typical Bulb 
Construction 



Point B 




Side View 



Black Opaque 
Coating^ 

Entire R 
Must Be 
Covered 



Line A 




Top View 



Undistorted 
Glass 



Point B Is Intersection of Plane B and Centerline of 
Undistorted Glass Tubing 



Dimension 



Inches 



Millimetres 



CA 
CB 
CC 
CD 



45° ± 5° 

030 ± 020 

50° Min 

52° Min 



45° ± 5° 

75 ± 50 

50° Min 

52° Min 



Opening for Bulb 

r 



Two Piece Flat White Construction 
(With Snap-On Lid) 




Opening for Connector 



Connector Cover Used in Luminous Flux Test 



Figure 20-1 - Specifications for the Type HB4 Standardized 
Replaceable Light Source 



PART 571; S 108-83-84 



View Y: from Bulb End 
BN- 




BD 2 PLC 
BE 2 PLC 



Optional Construction (View Y: from Bulb End) 
BQ 3 PLC 




Plane A 
BP 3 PLC 



Dimensions 

BA 

BB 

BC 

BD 

BE 

BF 

BG 

BH 

Bl 

BJ 

BK 

BL 

BM 

BN 

BO 

BP 

BQ 




View Z: from Connector End 



R 3 PLC 



Tolerances Unless Otherwise Specified 


Inches 


Millimetres 


2 Place Decimals ± 0.02 


1 Place Decimals ±05 


3 Place Decimals ± 0.010 


2 Place Decimals ± 0.30 


Angular ± 1° 


Angular ± 1° 



Inches 



0.866 ±0.002 Dia 


120°±0°30 


0.866 Dia 


0.394 


0.118 


0.079 


0.315 


1.181 Dia 


1.417 Dia 


3° 


30° 


0.157 


0.39 


0.079 ±0.004 


0.20 


0.030 


1 20° Typ 



Millimetres 


22.00 ±0.05 Dia 


120°±0°30 


22.00 Dia 


10.00 


3.00 


2.00 


8.00 


30.00 Dia 


36.00 Dia 


3° 


30° 


4.00 


9,9 


2.00 ±0.10 


5.0 


0.75 


120° Typ 



Figure 20-2 ■ Specifications for the Type HB4 Standardized 
Replaceable Light Source 



PART 571; S 108-85-86 




EM Constant 



EN Constant 
EO Constant 



2 PLC 



Section S'S (from Fig 20) 




Section R-R (From Fig 20) 



Dimensions 

EA 

EB 

EC 

ED 

EE 

EF 

EG 

EH 

El 

EJ 

EK 

EL 

EM 

EN 

EO 

EP 

EQ 

ER 

ES 



Inches 

0.384 

0.315 

0.171 

0.079 

0.343 

0.242 ±0.006 

0.484 

0.748 

0.368 ±0.006 

0.736 

0.439 ±0.006 

0.878 

0.059 

0.03 R 

0.016 R 

0.110 ±0.004 

0.024 

0.033 ±0.001 

0.039 Min 



Millimetres 

9.75 

8.00 

4.35 

2.00 

8.70 

6.15 ±0.15 

12.30 

19.00 

9.35 ±0.15 

18.70 

11.15 ±0.15 

22.30 

1.50 

0.8 R 

0.40 R 

2.8 ±0.10) 

0.60 

0.83 ±0.03 

1.00 Min 



Tolerances Unless Otherwise Specified 


Inches 


Millimetres 


2 Place Decimals ± 0.02 


1 Place Decimals ± 0.5 


3 Place Decimals ± 0.010 


2 Place Decimals ± 0.30 


Angular ± 1° 


Angular ± 1° 



Figure 20-3 - Specifications for the Type HB4 Standardized 
Replaceable Light Source 



PART 571; S 108-87-88 




Section V-V 



Dimensions 


Inches 


DA 


0.875 ±0.004 Dia 


DB 


172^°°^° 
^^''^ -0.000 


DC 


0.067 ±0.004 


DD 


r. nr.r. +0004 

°-392 _o.oOO 


DE 


0.236 Min 



Millimetres 

22.22 ±0.10 Dia 

, ^^ +0.30 
^•3^ -0.00 

1.70 ±0.10 

^■^^ -0.00 
6.00 Min 



Figure 20-4 - Specifications for the Type HB4 Standardized 
Replaceable Light Source Socket (in Reflector) 



PART 571; S 108-89-90 



CO 



<u 


0) 

p 


Q) 




() 


n3 


^ 




r 




*-* 




m 


U. 


»^ 




CO 

b 


CD 

1) 


o 

c 
o 




CO 

0) 


c 

CO 


CO 
o 




(0 


CL 


q 


X 






_i 


o 




U 

c 


m 


CO 


to 


CO 


X 


<D 


LU 


< 


< 




C 


(1) 


0) 


ra 


o 
CO 

c 
(1) 


c 
CO 

CL 


CO 





o 


E 


c 


^ 


*- 


a> 


CO 


C 


Q 

CO 


5 




E 






*-» 


m 


£• 


0) 


CO 




1- 


CO 


LLI 


LL 




<^S <] 



o 

CO 




0) 

E 

3 
O 
> 



II 

Q 




E 
b 



c 

(0 
N 



(0 












E 

3 


CD 








c 

CO 






T3 



CO 

3 


O 
> 


CJ) 








CO 
ffi 








2 

















o 


O 


% 


^ 








a> 














*- 








Q. 


0) 

o 






m 


i. 


_j 


S 








>. 






., 


■*~t 


C1 








h- 


k. 




CO 

3 
5 


o 

c 

3 


3 
5 


c 

(1 








0) 


3 
O 




00 
C\j 




O 

O 

0) 


c 
o 
O 








O 


O) 




,; 


LL 


£ 


T3 

C 








(0 


_l 




CO 





■1 


m 








c 






o 




o 


< 








o 


a> 




> 


O 


C_ 

V— 

3 











(0 


(0 


< 



C 

CO 


en 
to 



Q 


■D 

C 
LU 



r 


1— 

CO 


CO 

CL 
O 






CO 



k_ 


E 


o 
o 

0) 


0) 

o 

(0 

fi 


Q. 


■5 


\- 





CO 






a 


a> 


O 




■D 
O 
CO 





o 

■D 


3 
O 
T3 

C 



CO 
CO 
CO 


o 
o 

c 




(0 

U) 


oc 


CO 


.... 


ni 


C 


















CO 


O Q. 
O CO 


LU 
(1> 





^ 


E 
CO 


< 


o 

CM 




W 
CO 



c 


CO 
CO 




■D 


a. 

< 



o 




LL 
O 


c 
o 


0) 

3 






c 
CO 


LU 



b 

3 

O 


co 

fn 




E 
CO 






CO 
CO 

c 


O) 

il 




CL 


H 


> 




_l 


b 


b 

CO 

b 


o 

CO 

c 







PART 571; S 108-91-92 



5 




< 


2 




< 




III 


tr 


m 


Hi 


oc 


5 


lij 


O 


n 




oc 
o 

111 

S 



z~ 

= UJ 

^ > 




uJ 


CO 


CNJ 


a 


ff 


E 


(!: 


(0 








■o 




(0 




0) 


o 


z 


K 




< 


E 




(0 


ff 


0) 


o 


m 


LU 




2 


■o 




0> 








(B 




« 




(A 




♦< 




C 




3 




O 



(0 




:i!2 
z u. 

5 "J 
I m -D 

H u) m 
n:Z-> 
OQm 

u- U) < 

o lo 

Z O lo 



il 

Z Q 
CC liJ 

<5 

z •- 

^?: 






O) 




0) 








c 




Ix 




5-D 




. C 




w a 




c 




OO 




2S 




3 a 




0).>« 




.= H 




c 




o 




o 




>. 




♦; 




!5 




a 




0) 




O) 


*- 


c 




(0 


LU 


£ 


n 


2 


< 


0) 






< 


c 






z 


1 


o 


c 


h- 


o 


*- 
Z 


z 


UJ 


1 


ct 




o 




UJ 


^ 


5 
< 


OJ 


m 


0) 




kl 




3 




O) 




u. 



PART 571; S 108-93-94 



o5 ^"^ 

LU O UJ Z. 

Q2 J!;^ 



OS 

sip 



z Ul 
UJ o 

o3 



f^ 



S~ 



r 






J 



= ^ 






2^ 
CO in 

<0 t 






r-^ 



^3 




CO 

E 
S 

CO 

>< 

o. 

E 
w 

"O 
CO 

o 



T3 
C 
CO 

O 

& 

>> 
I- 

c 
o 

<n 
to 
.« 



o 

o 

3 



a 

(0 

< 

0) 
0) 

E 

o 

u 

Q 



OJ 
CM 

0) 

3 



PART 571; S 108-95-96 



EffKMv*: JoniMiy 1, l«M 



PREAMBLE TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 109 

New Pneumatic Tires — Passenger Cars 

(Docket No. 18) 



A proposal to amend §371.21 of Part 371, 
Initial Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, 
by adding Standard No. 109, New Pneumatic 
Tires — Passenger Cars; and Standard No. 110, 
Tire Selection and Rims — Passenger Cars; was 
published in the Federal Register on July 22, 
1967 (32 F.R. 10812). 

Interested persons have been afforded an op- 
portunity to participate in the making of the 
amendment. 

Compliance with the labeling requirements of 
Standard No. 109, established in accordance with 
section 201 of the National TraflSc and Motor 
Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 1421), and 
the tread wear indicator requirements found in 
the standard may necessitate the modification of 
tire molds. Several tire manufacturers requested 
that additional time be allowed to modify these 
tire molds. After evaluation of all data received, 
it was determined that an effective date of 
August 1, 1968, for paragraphs S4.2.1 and S4.3 
would provide a reasonable amount of time to 
accomplish the necessary mold modifications. 

Many comments stated that no practical way 
is known to permanently affix a label onto the 
tire sidewall, as would have been required by 
proposed paragraph S4.3.1 until such time as a 
label is molded into or onto the tire. Accord- 
ingly, S4.3.1 of Standard No. 109 has been modi- 
fied to permit, until August 1, 1968, the use of a 
label or tag containing the required labeling in- 
formation not permanently molded into or onto 
the tire. 

Many comments objected to the limitations 
imposed by the maximum tire section width di- 
mensions specified in the tables of the notice. 
The Administrator has determined that addi- 
tional dimensional latitude is necessary, and 
therefore Standard No. 109 specifies that to pro- 



vide for tire growth, protective side ribs, orna- 
mentation, manufacturing tolerances, and design 
differences for each tire size designation, actual 
tire section width and overall tire width may 
exceed the section width specified in Table I of 
the Standard by 7 percent. 

In response to requests, additional tire size 
designations and load/inflation schedules were 
added when necessary information was available. 
In addition. Table I of Standard No. 109 and 
Table II of Standard No. 110 have been com- 
bined to collate related information. 

Persons desiring an amendment to Standard 
No. 109 adding tires not presently listed, should 
submit sufficient pertinent information relative 
to these tires in 10 copies to the Secretary of 
Transportation ; Attention : Motor Vehicle Safety 
Performance Service, National Highway Safety 
Bureau, Federal Highway Administration, U.S. 
Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C. 
20591. 

Data received have shown that the rim refer- 
ences indicated in the proposed Standards were 
inadequate in coverage. Therefore, a more com- 
prehensive list of foreign and domestic trade 
association publications containing appropriate 
rim standards or practices has been referenced 
in the Standards. 

Data received demonstrated that the bead un- 
seating and tire strength requirements were in- 
appropriate for certain groups of small tires. 
Accordingly, tires were regrouped and the test 
values revised to provide requirements for these 
small tires that are proportional to the require- 
ments for other sizes of tires. 

Although Standard No. 109 applies to tires 
for use on passenger cars manufactured after 
1948, some of the tires covered by the Standard 
may also be used on earlier model vehicles. 



PART 571: S 109— PRE 1 



Mactiv*: January 1, 1968 



The testing procedures set forth in the Stand- 
ard, size designations, and related data are based 
upon existing standards or practices using in- 
formation furnished by such organizations as 
the Society of Automotive Engineers, Federal 
Trade Commission, Tire and Rim Association, 
European Tire and Rim Technical Organization, 
Japanese Standards Association, Japan Automo- 
bile Tire Manufacturers Association, Rubber 
Manufacturers Association, Tyre Manufacturers 
Conference, Ltd., and the Society of Motor 
Manufacturers and Traders, Ltd. 

To permit production of sufficient quantities 
of tires complying with the requirements of 
Standard No. 109 after its effective date of Jan- 
uary 1, 1968, Standard No. 110 applies to pas- 
senger cars manufactured on or after April 1, 
1968. 

A single table of load/pressure values for 
radial ply tires was included in the notice and 
this was supported by many comments. Other 
comments stressed the importance of including 
different load/pressure values for optimum tire 
deflections. Although a single table of load/ 
pressure schedules combining these values for 
these radial ply tires would be desirable, it was 
not considered advisable to include such a table 
in the standard promulgated under the present 
notice. 

In accordance with section 201 of the Act, 
S4.3 of Standard No. 109 requires that each tire 
be labeled with the name of the manufacturer or 
his brand name and an approved code mark to 
permit the tire seller to identify the tire manu- 
facturer upon the purchaser's request. Any tire 
manufacturer desiring an approved code mark 
should apply for his code number assignment to 
the Secretary of Transportation; Attention: 



Motor Vehicle Safety Performance Service, Na- 
tional Highway Safety Bureau, Federal High- 
way Administration, U.S. Department of Trans- 
portation, Washington, D.C. 20591. 

Several comments, including the suggested use 
of a "load range" system, will be considered for 
future rulemaking. (See 32 F.R. 14279). 

Since it was clearly the intent of the Congress 
that, to enhance the safety of the general public. 
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards for 
tires become effective as soon as practicable, and 
since no adverse comments were received perti- 
nent to the proposed effective date presented in 
the advance notice of proposed rulemaking (32 
F.R. 2417), at a Government-industry technical 
meeting, and in the notice of proposed rulemak- 
ing (32 F.R. 10812), and no undue burden was 
demonstrated, good cause is shown that an ef- 
fective date earlier than 180 days after issuance 
is in the public interest. 

In consideration of the foregoing, § 371.21 of 
Part 371, Initial Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 
Standards, is amended .... Standard No. 109 
becomes effective January 1, 1968, and Standard 
No. 110 becomes effective April 1, 1968. 

(Sees 103, 119, National Traffic and Motor 
Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 1392, 
1407) ; delegation of authority of Mar. 31, 1967 
(32 F.R. 5606), as amended Apr. 6, 1967 (32 
F.R. 6495), July 27, 1967 (32 F.R. 11276), Oct. 
11, 1967 (32 F.R. 14277), Nov. 8, 1967). 

Issued in Washington, D.C, on November 8, 
1967. 

Lowell K. Bridwell, 

Federal Highway Administrator. 

32 F.R. 15792 
November 16, 1967 



PART 571; S 109— PRE 2 



Eff*<tlv«: January 1, 196t 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 109 

New Pneumatic Tires — Passenger Cars 
(Docket No. 18) 



Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109 (32 
F.R. 15792) specifies tire dimensions and lab- 
oratory test requirements for bead unseating 
resistance, strength, endurance, and high speed 
performance; defines tire load ratings; and speci- 
fies labeling requirements for new pneumatic 
tires for use on passenger cars manufactured 
after 1948. 

Certain labeling requirements are set forth 
in S4.3, including, in paragraph (i), a require- 
ment for an approved recital (or the symbol 
specified in Figure 1) that the tire conforms to 
applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Stand 
ards. Figure 1 contains lettering detail dimen- 
sions for that symbol. 

The Federal Highway Administration has de- 
termined that it is not necessary to specify the 
width and stroke of individual letters nor the 
space between letters if the overall length and 
height is specified, and that more latitude is 
needed in the depth and overall length require- 
ments for this symbol. Therefore, Standard No. 
109 is being amended by striking out the un- 
needed dimensions and by providing increased 
latitude for the letter depth and the overall 
length requirements. 

Since this amendment provides an alternative 
means of compliance, relieves a restriction, and 



imposes no additional burden on any person, 
notice and public procedure hereon are unneces- 
sary and good cause is shown that an effective 
date earlier than 180 days after issuance is in 
the public interest and the amendment may be 
made effective less than 30 days after publication 
in the Federal Register. 

In consideration of the foregoing, § 371.21 of 
Part 371, Initial Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 
Standards, Standard No. 109 is amended by de- 
leting Figure 1 (32 F.R. 15794) and in its place 
inserting the following Figure 1. 

(Sees. 103, 119, National Traffic and Motor 
Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 1392, 
1407) ; delegation of authority of Mar. 31, 1967 
(32 F.R. 6506), as amended Apr. 6, 1967 (32 
F.R. 6495), July 27, 1967 (32 F.R. 11276), Oct. 
11, 1967 (32 F.R. 14277), and Nov. 8, 1967 (32 
F.R. 15710)) 

This amendment becomes effective January 1, 
1968. 

Issued in Washington, D.C., on December 11, 
1967. 

Lowell K. Bridwell, 

Federal Highway Administrator. 

33 F.R. 17938 
December 15, 1967 



PART 571; S 109— PRE 3-4 



IffKftva April 11, 196t 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 109 

New Pneumatic Tires — Passenger Cars 
(Docket No. 18R) 



Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109 (32 
F.R. 15792), as amended (32 F.R. 17938), speci- 
fies tire dimensions and laboratory test require- 
ments for bead unseating resistance, strength, 
endurance, and high speed perf ormanace ; defines 
tire load ratings; and specifies labeling require- 
ments for new pneumatic tires for use on pas- 
senger cars manufactured after 1948. Motor 
Vehicle Safety Standard No. 110 (32 F.R. 
15798) specifies tire selection and rims require- 
ments to prevent tire overloading. 

Figures 2 and 3 of Standard No. 109 are 
drawings of the bead unseating test fixture used 
in performing the test specified in S5.2. 

Section S5.4.2.3 specifies the 50 miles-per-hour 
test schedule for the tire endurance test. 

Tables I-A through I-H list the various tire 
types and sizes with proper load and inflation 
values. 

After review of Petitions for Reconsideration 
received under Docket No. 18R, the Administra- 
tor has determined that certain parts of Standard 
No. 109 require clarification, the tire tables need 
revision to include a number of new sizes and 
there is need for a table listing a new series of 
tires. 

In addition. Standard No. 110 requires an ad- 
ditional table to list alternative rims for tire and 
rim combinations not presently covered by the 
standard. 

Therefore, Standard No. 109 is being amended 
by- 

(a) Revising Figures 2 and 3, which depict 
the bead unseating test fixture, by adding one 
additional dimension to Figure 2 and a center- 
line and tangent line to Figure 3 ; 

(b) Specifying that the test required by 
S5.4.2.3 be conducted without pressure adjust- 
ment or other interruption; 



(c) In table I-A through I-H 

( 1 ) Adding additional tire size designations ; 

(2) Adding footnotes permitting the use of 
the letter "H","S", or "V"; 

(3) Correcting typographical errors; 

(d) Adding Table I-J which lists a new series 
of low section height tires. 

In addition. Standard No. 110 is being 
amended by — 

(a) Revising paragraph S4.4.1 to include al- 
ternative rims, not presently listed in the refer- 
ences cited in the definition of Test Rim in S3 
of Standard No. 109 ; and 

(b) Adding a new table of approved alterna- 
tive rims. 

Since these amendments provide clarification 
and alternative means of compliance, relieve re- 
strictions, and impose no additional burden on 
any person, notice and public procedure hereon 
are unnecessary. The Administrator finds, for 
good cause shown, that no preparatory period is 
needed to effect compliance and it is therefore in 
the public interest to make the amendments ef- 
fective immediately. 

In consideration of the foregoing, § 371.21 of 
Part 371, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Stand- 
ards, Standard No. 109 (32 F.R. 15792), as 
amended (32 F.R. 17938), and Standard No. 110 
(32 F.R. 15798), are amended, effective April 11, 
1968 

(Sees. 103, 119, National Traffic and Motor 
Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 1392, 
1407) ; delegation of authority of March 31, 1967 
(32 F.R. 5606), as amended Nov. 8, 1967 (32 
F.R. 15710)). 

Issued in Washington, D.C., on April 11, 1968. 
Lowell K. Bridwell, 
Federal Highway Administrator. 
33 F.R. 5944 
April 18, 1968 



PART 571; S 109— PRE 5-6 



EKmMv*: $«plmnb«r 27, 1 96* 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 109 

New Pneumatic Tires — Passenger Cars 



On September 11, 1968, the Federal Highway 
Administration published in the Federal Register 
amendments to Standard Nos. 109 and 110 (33 
F.R. 12842). Omitted from publication as part 
of Appendix A of Standard No. 109 were Tables 
1-A through 1-J. For the convenience of per- 
sons using the tables the preamble to the amend- 
ments published September 11, 1968, and the 
text of the amendments, as corrected by the ad- 
dition of the omitted tables are published below. 
Additionally, Appendix A of Standard No. 110 
has been changed to specify the information that 
should be submitted with requests for the addi- 
tion of alternative rim sizes. 

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 

109 (32 F.R. 15792), as amended (32 F.R. 17938 
and 33 F.R. 5944), specifies tire dimensions and 
laboratory test requirements for bead unseating 
resistance, strength, endurance and high speed 
performance; defines tire load ratings; and 
specifies labeling requirements for new pneumatic 
tires for use on passenger cars manufactured 
after 1948. Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 

110 (32 F.R. 15798) as amended (33 F.R. 5949) 
specifies tire selection and rim requirements to 
prevent tire overloading. 

Tables 1-A through 1-J of Standard No. 109 
list various tire types and sizes with proper load 
and inflation values. 

Standard No. 109 is being amended to desig- 
nate Tables 1-A through 1-J as Appendix A of 
Standard No. 109. 

In addition. Table 1-H is being amended by 
adding additional tire size designations. 

Table I of Standard No. 110 is a list of alter- 
native rims for tire and rim combinations that 
are not contained in any reference in § 3 of 
SUndard No. 109. 



Standard No. 110 is being amended to desig- 
nate Table I as Appendix A of Standard No. 110. 

In addition, the table is being amended by 
adding, as alternative rims for tire size 8.55x15, 
rim sizes 5V2-JK, 514-JJ, 5i^^; F70-14, rim 
size 7JJ ; and G70-14, rim size 7JJ. 

Additionally, guidelines by which persons re- 
questing routine additions to Appendix A of 
Standard No. 109 and Appendix A of Standard 
No. 110, are set forth as introductor}- language 
to both appendices. The guidelines provide an 
abbreviated rule making procedure for adding 
tire sizes to Standard No. 109, whereby the ad- 
dition becomes effective 30 days from date of 
publication in the Federal Register if no com- 
ments are- received. If comments objecting to 
the amendment warrant, the Administration will 
provide for additional rule making pursuant to 
the Rule Making Procedures for Motor Vehicle 
Safety Standards (23 C.F.R. 216). 

Since these amendments provide an alternative 
means of compliance, relieve restrictions, and 
impose no additional burdens on any person, 
notice and public procedure hereon are unneces- 
sary and the Administrator finds, for good cause 
shown, that no preparatory period is needed to 
effect compliance and it is in the public interest 
to make the amendments effective immediately. 

In consideration of the foregoing. Section 
371.21 of Part 371, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 
Standards, Standard No. 109 (32 F.R. 16792), 
as amended (32 F.R. 17938 and 33 F.R. 6944), 
and Standard No. 110 (32 F.R. 16798), as 
amended (33 F.R. 5949), are amended effective 
this date as set forth below. 

These amendments are made under the author- 
ity of Sections 103 and 119 of the National 



PART 571; S 109— PRE 7 



MkIIv*: S*pt*mb«r 27, 1968 

Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 
(15 U.S.C. 1392, 1407) and the delegation from 
the Secretary of Transportation, Part I of the 
Regulations of the Office of the Secretary (49 
C.F.R.§ 1.4(c)). 



Issued in Washington, D.C., on September 27, 
1968. 

John R. Jamieson, Deputy 
Federal Highway Administrator 
33 F.R. 14964 
October 5, 1968 



PART 571; S 109— PRE 8 



MkHv*: Merdi 10, 1M* 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 109 

New Pneumatic Tires — Passenger Cars 
(Docket No. 69-4; Notice No. 1) 



On October 5, 1968, the Federal Highway 
Administration published guidelines in the Fed- 
eral Register (33 F.R. 14964) by which routine 
additions could be added to Appendix A of 
Standard No. 109 and the Appendix A of Stand- 
ard No. 110. These guidelines provided an ab- 
breviated rule-making procedure for adding tire 
sizes to Standard No. 109 and alternative rim 
sizes to Standard No. 110, whereby the addition 
becomes effective 30 days from date of publica- 
tion in the Federal Register if no objections to 
the proposed additions are received. If com- 
ments objecting to the amendment warrant, 
rule making pursuant to the rule-making proce- 
dures for motor vehicle safety standards (49 
CFR Part 353) will be followed. 

The Rubber Manufacturers Association has 
petitioned for the addition of the C70-15 tire 
size designation to Table I-B and the F60-15 
tire size designation as a new category of tire to 
be listed within the tables. The Firestone Tire 
& Rubber Company has petitioned for the addi- 
tion of the E50C-16, F50C-16, and H50C-17 
tire size designations as a new category of tires. 

On the basis of the data submitted by the 
Rubber Manufacturers Association and the Fire- 
stone Tire & Rubber Company indicating com- 
pliance with the requirements of Federal Motor 
Vehicle Safety Standards Nos. 109 and 110 and 
other information submitted in accordance with 
the procedural guidelines set forth. Appendix A 
of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109 is 
being amended and Table I of Appendix A of 
Standard No. 110 is being amended. 



In consideration of the foregoing, § 371.21 of 
Part 371 Federal Motor Vehicle Safety SUnd- 
ards, Appendix A of Standard No. 109 (33 F.R. 
14964) and Appendix A of Standard No. 110 
(33 F.R. 14969) are amended as set forth below 
effective 30 days from date of publication in the 
Federal Register. 

These amendments are issued under the dele- 
gation of authority published October 5, 1968 
(33 F.R. 14964) and sections 103 and 119 of the 
National TraflBc and Motor Vehicle Safety Act 
of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 1392, 1407) and the delegation 
from the Secretary of Transportation, Part I of 
the Regulations of the Office of tlie Secretary 
(49 CFR 1.4(c)). 

Issued on February 3, 1969. 

H. M. Jacklin, Jr. 

Acting Director 

Motor Vehicle Safety 

Performance Service 

National Highway Safety Bureau 

Motor VohicU Sofoty Standard No. 109 

(1) Table I-B of Appendix A is amended by 
inserting between the tire size designation L70-14 
and D70-15 . . . new tire size C70-15 data. 

(2) . . . Tables I-K and I-L are added to 
Appendix A listing new categories of tire size 
designations. 

34 F.R. 1908 
February 8, 1969 



PART 571 ; S 109— PRE "9-10 



EffKtlv*: March 15, 196* 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 109 

New Pneumatic Tires — Passenger Cars 
(Docket No. 69-3; Notice No. 1) 



The Rubber Manufacturers Association has 
submitted a petition for rulemaking requesting 
amendments to Table I-A and Table I-B of 
Appendix A of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 
Standard No. 109 — New Pneumatic Tires — Pas- 
senger Cars. 

The petition requests the following changes : 

(1) In Table I-A for tire size designation 
8.25-15 the minimum size factor be changed from 
37.57 inches to 35.57 inches. 

(2) In Table I-B for tire size designation 
D70-13 the minimum size factor be changed from 
32.32 ihohes to 32.34 inches; for tire size desig- 
nation 1)70-14 the minimum size factor be 
changed from 32.87 inches to 32.81 inches ; for tire 
size designation F70-14 the minimum size factor 
be changed from 34.18 inches to 34.16 inches; 
for tire size designation G70-14 the minimum 
size factor be changed from 35.14 inches to 35.18 
inches; for tire size designation J70-14 the 
minimum size^r-fst^tor be changed from 36.91 
inches to 36.87 inches ^ for tire size designation 
L70-14 the minimum size factor be changed from 
37.59 to 37.62 and the section width be changed 
from 9.80 inches to 9.75 inches; for tire size 
designation D70-15 the minimum size factor be 
changed from 33.34 inches to 33.37 inches and 
the section width be changed from 7.76 inches to 
7.70 inches; for tire size designation E70-15 the 
minimum size factor be changed from 34.17 
inches to 3413 inches; for tire size designation 
F70-16 the minimum size factor be changed 
from 34.91 inches to 34.89 inches; for tire size 
designation G70-15 the minimum size factor be 
changed from 35.68 inches to 35.66 inches; for 
tire size designation H70-15 the minimum size 
factor be changed from 36.68 inches to 36.64 
inches ; for tire size designation J70-15 the mini- 
mum size factor be changed from 37.34 inches 



to 37.36 inches; and for tire size designation 
K70-15 the minimum size factor be changed 
from 37.62 inches to 37.66 inches. 

RMA states in its petition that the requested 
changes are either (1) corrections of typographi- 
cal errors in material submitted earlier by the 
KMA, upon which the present tables found in 
Appendix A of Standard No. 1 i are based; or 
(2) slight modifications that reflect the most 
recently calculated data. 

The request changes are being made. However, 
should any comments be received from interested 
persons objecting to, and giving reasons why the 
changes should not be made, the amendment will 
be modified as considered appropriate. 

Since, to the extent they are other than cor- 
rective, these amendments make only minor 
technical changes at the request of the affected 
industry, the Administrator finds that, for good 
cause, notice of public procedure thereon is im- 
practicable and unnecessary. Interested persons 
may submit written data, views, or arguments 
relating to the amendments. Comments should 
identify the Docket (No. 69-3) and be submit- 
ted in an original and three copies to the Na- 
tional Highway Safety Bureau, Rules Docket, 
Room 512, Federal Highway Administration, 
Washington, D.C. 20591. All conmients submit- 
ted will be available for examination by inter- 
ested persons at the docket room. 

In consideration of the foregoing, section 371.21 
of Part 371 (formally section 255.21 of Part 265), 
Tables I-A and I-B of Appendix A of Federal 
Motor "Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109 as 
amended (33 F.R. 19714) is amended effective 
March 15, 1969 .... (Sees. 103 and 119 of the 
National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act 
of 1966; (15 U.S.C. 1392, 1407); and the dele- 
gation of authority contained in § 1.4(c) of 



PART 671; S 109— PRE 11 



EffKliva: March IS, 1969 



Part I of the Regulations of the Office of the 
Secretary (49 CFR 1.4 (c)). 

Issued in Washington, D.C. on February 10, 
1969. 



John R. Jamieson, Deputy 
Federal Highway Administrator 

34 F.R. 2252 
February 15, 1969 



PART 571; S 109— PRE 12 



ifft««vti January 1, 1971 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 109 

New Pneumatic Tires — Passenger Cars 
(Doclcet No. 69-12; Notice No. 2) 



A proposal to amend Part 571 (fonnerly Part 
371), Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 
No. 109, "New Pneumatic Tires — Passenger 
Cars" was published on July 11, 1969 (34 F.R. 
11501), as a notice of proposed rule making to 
delete the exemption for deep-tread, winter-type 
tires contained in the high-speed requirements. 
Interested persons were invited to submit com- 
ments to this notice. 

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 
109 (49 CFR 571.21), as amended (33 F.R. 
19711), specifies tire dimensions and laboratory 
test requirements for bead unseating resistance, 
strength, endurance and high-speed performance ; 
defines tire load ratings; and specifies labeling 
requirements for new pneumatic tires for use on 
passenger cars manufactured after 1948. 

Paragraph S5.5.4 of Standard No. 109 specifies 
that for the high-speed performance aspects of 
the standard, tires are to be tested at 75 m.p.h. 
for 30 minutes, 80 m.p.h. for 30 minutes, and 
(ercept for deep-tread, winter-types tires) 85 
m.p.h. for 30 minutes. 

Because, in actual practice, deep-tread, winter- 
type tires are often required to perform at the 
same rate of speed as other type passenger car 
tires it was considered in the public interest to 
amend S5.5.4 to require the same level of high- 
speed performance of deep-tread, winter-type 
tires as other type tires are required to meet. 

Several comments, including comments from 
one association representing new tire manufac- 
turing companies, stated that the deep-tread, 
winter-type tires had groove depths deeper than 
conventionally treaded tires and that shoulder 



temperatures of the tires on the laboratory test 
wheel operating at 80 m.p.h. are comparable to 
actual highway speeds in excess of 100 m.p.h. 
These commentators also indicated that to com- 
ply with the proposed amendment, the tread 
depths and lug configurations for the deep-tread, 
winter-type tires would have to be redesigned. 
However, research conducted for the Bureau has 
indicated that all deep-tread, winter-type tires 
when properly designed and constructed will 
conform to the present high-speed requirements 
for conventionally treaded passenger car tires. 
In addition, test wheel data submitted show that 
although the temperature of the crown of the 
tire of deep-tread, winter-type tires may run 
higher during the high-speed wheel test the dif- 
ference in shoulder temperature appears insig- 
nificant. 

Since deep-tread, winter-type tires muSt often 
perform at the same motor vehicle speeds and 
driving conditions as conventionally treaded 
tires, it is in the public interest that they meet 
the same minimum performance levels. 

In oonsiaeration of the above. Federal Motor 
Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109 paragraph 
S5.5.4 is amended .... 

This amendment becomes effective January 1, 
1971. 

Issued on July 8, 1970. 

Douglas W. Toms, 

Director, 

National Highway Safety Bur^u 

35 F.R. 11241 
July 14, 1970 



PART 571; S 109-PRE 13-14 



Eff*ctlv«: Dcnmbcr 1, 1970 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 109 

New Pneumatic Tires — Passenger Cars 
(Docket No. 70-2; Notice No. 2) 



A proposal to amend Federal Motor Vehicle 
Safety Standard 109, New Pneumatic Tires — 
Passenger Cars, 49 CFR Part 571, was published 
on April 22, 1970 (35 F.R. 6440). The purpose 
of the proposed rule was to prevent the sale of 
tires that failed to pass the passenger car tire 
standard Motor Vehicle Safety (Standard No. 
109) but were nevertheless being sold for pas- 
senger car use. As indicated in the notice of the 
proposed rule, Bureau investigations disclose 
that this has been a widespread practice. The 
use of such tires on passenger cars is considered 
a safety hazard. 

In spite of the notice and press releases on the 
subject, the Bureau has found that unscrupulous 
distributors and dealers are continuing to buff 
off restrictive labeling on the tir^ and are selling 
them to unsuspecting members of the public. 
This amendment is therefore necessary to control 
the relatively large number of tires being re- 
classified and to provide a better means of en- 
forcing the regulation against persons who are 
selling these tires for passenger car use. 

The amendment changes the passenger car tire 
standard to require tires that are not certified by 
the manufacturer as complying with the pas- 
senger car tire standard to be branded with the 
phrase "Unsafe for Highway U?e" and to have 
a label attached indicating that sale of the tire 
for passenger car use subjects the person selling 
the tire to a $1,000 civil penalty. The amend- 
ment also requires tire manufacturers to report 
to the Bureau periodically on the number of 
these tires sold and the names of distributorB or 
dealers to whom they are sold. 

Interested persons have been offered an oppor- 
tunity to participate in the making of this amend- 
ment. It was almost unanimously agreed that 



there should be some restrictions placed on tires 
that had not been certified as complying with 
Standard No. 109. Several comments to the 
notice objected, however, to the requirement that 
the phrase "Unsafe for Nornial Highway Use" 
be on the tire, on the ground that the word 
"Normal" was ambiguous. This designation has 
been found to have merit, and the word "Normal" 
has been omitted from the required phrase. 

The requirement that the phrase be superim- 
posed upon the manufacturer's name, or brand 
name, with lettering three-quarters of an indi 
high was objected to because the phrase would 
not be legible and could be easily removed. To 
avoid these problems, the requirement has been 
changed to provide that the phrase "Unsafe for 
Highway Use" be placed between the maximum 
section width and the tread and the height of the 
lettering reduced to one-half inch. 

The proposal that the lettering of the term 
signifying the tire was unsafe for highway use 
be one-sixteenth of an inch deep was objected to 
because some tire casings have less than one- 
sixteenth of an inch of rubber on the outside of 
the sidewall and the alternative of one-half the 
thickness of the rubber covering the outside ply 
was not meaningful because the thickness could 
not always be determined. However, it is essen- 
tial that the lettering be deep enough so that any 
attempt to buff it off will be easily recognizable 
and, therefore, the requirement that the lettering 
be one-sixteenth of an inch deep is being main- 
tained. The change from the proposal to allow 
the lettering to be located anywhere between the 
maximum section width and the tread will allow 
the manufacturer to select a location where the 
rubber thickness is sufficient to impress lettering 
one-sixteenth of an inch. 



PART 571; S 109-PRE 15 



M««tlv«i D*«Mnb*r 1, 1970 

Some comments suggested that the words 
"tube" or "tubeless" be required on the tire, even 
though the tire would not be used for passenger 
cars. This suggestion has been adopted in the 
final rule. 

The requirement that the maximum inflation 
pressure and the maximum load rating be on the 
tire was omitted because they pertain to tires 
manufactured for passenger car use, not tires for 
oflf-road usage. 

Some comments objected to the requirMnent 
(ihat manufacturers report, the quantity and serial 
numbers of reclassified tires sold and the names 
of distributors and dealers who purchase them. 
It was argued that keeping track of serial num- 
bers, and distributors or dealers the tires were 
sold to would be burdensome and serve no safety 
related purpose. The Bureau feels that report- 
ing of reclassified tires that are unsafe for high- 
way use will provide the necessary control over 
these reclassified tires to assure that the tires will 
not be sold for passenger car use. Therefore, the 
reporting requirements have been maintained. 



In consideration of the foregoing, Title 49 — 
Transportation, Chapter V — National Highway 
Safety Bureau, Department of Transportation, 
Subchapter A — Motor Vehicle Safety Regula- 
tions, Part 571 — Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 
Standard No. 109, New Pneimiatic Tires — ^Pas- 
senger Cars is amended. 

Effective date : December 1, 1970. 

Since this amendment is designed to prevent 
a practice which can endanger the lives and prop- 
erty of the general public and because no com- 
ments were received objecting to the proposed 
effective date of December 1, 1970, in the notice 
of proposed rulemaking, good cause is shown that 
an effective date earlier than 180 days after issu- 
ance is in the public interest. 



Issued on October 22, 1970. 



Douglas W. Toms, 
Director 

35 F.R. 16734 
Octobar 29, 1970 



PART 571; S 109-PRE 16 



Elhctiv*: May 22, 1971 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 109 

New Pneumatic Tires— Passenger Cars 
(Docket No. 71-4; Notice No. 1) 



Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 
109, 49 CFR Part 571, as amended (35 F.R. 
16735), specifies requirements for passenger car 
tire dimensions and laboratory test requirements, 
defines tire load ratings, specifies labeling re- 
quirements and sets forth the limited conditions 
under which j>assenger car tires that are not 
certified as complying with the standard may be 
sold. One of the labeling requirements of the 
standard (S4.3(d)) is that each tire be labeled 
on both sidewulls with the manufacturer's name 
or, if the tire is a brand name tire, with the 
brand name and an approved code mark assigned 
the manufacturer by the National Highway 
Traffic Safety Administration (formerly the Na- 
tional Highway Safety Bureau). Another label- 
ing requirement (S4.3(i) ) in the standard is that 
each tire contain on both sidewalls a certification 
statement or the S)mabol DOT, constituting the 
manufacturer's certification that the tire conforms 
to the standard. Both of these requirements are 
affected by the Tire Identification and Record- 
keeping Regulation (49 CFR Part 574), as re- 
Vised and published in this issue of the Federal 
Register (36 F.R. 1196), in that the Tire Iden- 
tification and Recordkeeping Regulation specifies 
the location of the DOT symbol and requires 
that it be on either sidewall of the tire. Part 574 
also establishes a system whereby all tire manu- 
facturers apply for an assigned two-symbol code 
designation which is to be part of the tire iden- 
tification niunber and placed on either sidewall. 
It is intended that these requirements take the 
place of the requirements in Standard No. 109 
that tire manufacturers be assigned a three- 
number code and that it be placed on both side- 
walls of brand name tires. 



In view of the above, S4.3 of the passenger car 
tire standard is amended as set forth below to 
reconcile the requirements of Standard No. 109 
with the requirements of the Tire Identification 
and Recordkeeping Regulation. 

In addition, the labeling requirements (S4.3) 
are changed as set forth below to make it clear 
that each tire shall be labeled with only one size 
designation found in the tables in Appendix A 
of Standard No. 109, except that tires may have 
equivalent inch and metric size designations. 
The labeling requirements are further changed 
by deleting the paragraph which deals with tires 
manufactured before August 1, 1968, since the 
exception is no longer relevant. 

Requirements for reclassified tires (S6.) are 
being amended to provide that the serial number 
required by S6.1(c), and the manufacturer's code 
symbol, if used, can be on either sidewall. 

It is further noted that the correction published 
in the Federal Register of November 26, 1970 
(35 F.R. 18118), was inaccurately stated as "for 
the period covering November 1, 1970 through 
July 31, 1971". Actually, the phrase to be cor- 
rected was "for the period covering December 1, 
1970 through July 31, 1971." S6.2 should read 
"for the period covering December 1, 1970 
through June 30, 1971", and for clarity S6.2 is 
republished with the correct language. 

In consideration of the foregoing. Standard 
No. 109 of § 571.21 of Title 49, Code of Federal 
Regulations, is amended. 

Effective date : May 22, 1971. 



PART 571; S 109- PRE 17 



MMrivf May 22, 1971 

Because this amendment to Standard No. 109 Issued on January 19, 1971. 

relieves restrictions, clarifies the intent expressed 

in the standard, makes a correction to the stand- Douglas W. Toms, 

ard and imposes no additional burden on any Acting Administrator, National 

person, notice and request for comments on such Highway Traffic Safety Ad- 

notice are found to be imnecessary and imprac- ministration 

ticable, and good cause is shown that an effective 

date earlier than 180 days after issuance is in 36 F.R. 1195 

the public interest. January 26, 1971 



PART 571; S 109-PRE 18 



4. 1971 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 109 

New Pneumatic Tires — Passenger Cars 
(Docket No. 71-6; NoHce 1) 



On January 26, 1971, the National Highway 
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) pub- 
lished in the Federal Register (36 F.R. 1196) a 
revision of Part 574, Tire Identification and 
Record Keeping (Docket No. 70-12; Notice No. 
5) to become effective May 22, 1971. Part 574, 
as revised, provides that the DOT symbol, con- 
stituting the manufacturer's certification that 
the tire conforms with applicable motor vehicle 
safety standards, must be above, below, or to the 
left or right of the tire identification number. 
In addition, under this part the tire identification 
number must include, as the first grouping within 
the number, a two-symbol code assigned by the 
NHTSA that identifies the manufacturer of the 
tire. This notice amends Standard No. 109 of 
Part 571, in order to allow manufacturers, at 
their option, to convert to the new tire identifi- 
cation system before the May 22, 1971, effective 
date. 

The requirements of Part 574 relating to the 
certification symbol and the manufacturer's code 
number will take the place of the requirements 
in Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109, Part 
571 of this chapter, that the tire manufacturers 
place the DOT symbol and an assigned three- 
digit code number (in the case of brand-name 
tires) on both sidewalk. Accordingly, a notice 
published January 26, 1971 (36 F.R. 1195), 
amends Standa'rd No. 109, effective May 22, 1971, 
to reconcile the requirements of that standard 
with the requirements of the Tire Identification 
and Record Keeping Regulation. 



The Administration has received requests that 
tires manufactured before May 22, 1971, the 
effective date of Part 574, that are marked as 
prescribed by that part, not be required to be 
labeled on both sidewaUs with the DOT symbol 
and the manufacturer's three-digit code required 
by Standard No. 109. 

The requests have been found reasonable. In 
order to avoid imnecessary costs and allow for a 
smoother transition to the new requirements. 
Standard No. 109 is by this notice amended to 
provide that tires manufactured from March 1, 
1971 to May 22, 1971, shall either meet the re- 
quirements of § 574.5, or, on both sidewalls, con- 
tain the DOT symbol and the manufacturer's 
three-digit code nimiber required by S4.3(d) and 
S4.3(i) of Standard No. 109. Thus, tires manu- 
factured during this period may be marked ac- 
cording to the current system, the new one 
effective May 22, 1971, or both. 

Because this amendment to Standard No. 109 
relieves restrictions and imposes no additional 
burden on any person, it is found that notice 
and public procedure thereon are unnecessary 
and impracticable, and that, for good cause 
shown, an effective date earlier than 180 days 
after issuance is in the public interest. 

Issued on February 26, 1971. 

Douglas W. Toms, 
Acting Administrator 

36 F.R. 4290 
Mareh 4, 1971 



PART 571; S 109-PRE 19-20 



EffMHvc Octebci I, 1972 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 109 



Reclassified Tires 
(Docket No. 70-2; Notice 4) 



The purpose of this notice is to amend Motor 
Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109, to prohibit the 
manufacture and sale of passenger car tires that 
do not meet the performance requirements of the 
standard. Such tires are presently allowed to be 
sold as "reclassified tires." A notice proposing 
this action was published on November 27, 1971 
(36 F.R. 22688). 

Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109, "New 
Pneumatic Tires," was amended October 29, 
1970 (35 F.R. 16743), to allow passenger car 
tires which manufacturers did not certify as 
conforming to the performance tests of the stand- 
ard, to be sold for off-highway purposes. The 
amendment required such tires to be labeled so 
that purchasers would be aware that they were 
considered imsafe for highway use. Moreover, 
manufacturers of such tires were required to re- 
port semi-annually to the NHTSA the number 
of tires sold. The purpose of the requirement 
was to allow the sale of such tires for off-high- 
way purposes where a legitimate market existed 
for low-priced inexpensive tires, and where the 
fact that they failed to meet Federal perform- 
ance tests would not pose a threat to users. De- 
spite the conditions imposed by this amendment, 
the NHTSA continued to receive reports that 
significant nvmibers of these tires were being sold 
by unscrupulous dealers for passenger car, on- 
highway use. 

Based upon its investigative efforts, and the 
material submitted to the docket in response to 
the notice of November 27, 1971, the NHTSA 
has determined that the continued sale of these 
tires should be prohibited, and that the substance 
of the rule proposed on November 27, 1971, 
should be implemented. Data which the NHTSA 
receives from manufacturers show an annual 



production of these tires in the neighborhood of 
200,000 units. The NHTSA has concluded that 
it cannot by enforcement measures alone prevent 
a significant number of these tires from being 
sold as "reclassified tires" for use on motor 
vehicles. 

As indicated in the preamble to the notice of 
November 27, the tire industry manufactures 
tires designed specifically for off-road applica- 
tions which are not greatly more expensive than 
most reclassified tires. The dangers that may 
result from vehicles equipped with substandard 
tires far outweigh, in the opinion of NHTSA, 
the economic benefits obtainable from allowing 
these tires to be sold for off-road purposes. 

Certain issues raised by the comments to the 
notice of proposed rulemaking have been de- 
termined to be of merit, and they are incorpo- 
rated into this amendment. The comments 
pointed out that the reference to all tires of the 
type and size designation found in the appendix 
of Standard No. 109 included tires other than 
passenger car tires, namely, certain tires manu- 
factured for agricultural purposes that are not 
required to conform to Standard No. 109. As 
issued, this amendment applies only to those tires 
of a type and size designation appearing in the 
appendix of Standard No. 109 that are designed 
for use on passenger cars. 

The comments also pointed out that prohibit- 
ing the sale of these tires as of the amendment's 
effective date would penalize many dealers who 
may have large stocks of such tires on hand. It 
was not the NHTSA's intention to penalize 
dealers, who in good faith have purchased such 
tires for sale as "reclassified tires" under existing 
regulations, but rather to prevent the further re- 
classification of tires by manufacturers, and to 



PART 571; S 109— PRE 21 



Effediva: October 1, 1972 



require them to dispose of such tires in a way 
that their use as motor vehicle equipment will be 
impossible. This amendment, therefore, applies 
to tires manufactured (not sold) after its effec- 
tive date and prohibits, after that date, the 
further reclassification of tires and their sale by 
manufacturers. "Reclassified tires" presently 
on dealer's shelves may continue to be distributed 
and sold in accordance with the existing provi- 
sions (S6.) of Standard No. 109 dealing with 
reclassified tires imtil supplies are exhausted. 

The comments further pointed out that the 
language of the notice that prohibited the sale 
of these tires "for any purpose" would not allow 
them to be sold even for scrap materials. The 
comments indicated that advantageous uses for 
scrap tires are presently being developed. The 
NHTSA has no reason to prevent the sale of 
these tires if their use as motor vehicle equipment 
is impossible, and the amendment allows their 
sale as scrap materials. 



In light of the above, Motor Vehicle Safety 
Standard No. 109, "New Pneumatic Tires," ap- 
pearing at 49 CFR 571.109, is amended .... 

Elective date: October 1, 1972. The purpose 
of this amendment is to prevent a practice which 
is in violation of existing regulations, and whose 
continuance poses a threat to all users of the 
highways. Accordingly, it is hereby found that 
good cause exists for an effective date less than 
180 days from the day of issuance. 

This notice is issued under the authority of 
sections 103, 112, 119, and 201 of the National 
Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 
1392, 1401, 1407, 1421) and the delegation of 
authority at 49 CFR 1.51. 

Issued on August 11, 1972. 

Douglas W. Toms 
Administrator 

37 F.R. 16604 
August 17, 1972 



PART 571; S 109— PRE 22 



EffKHv*: July I, 1973 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 109 

New Pneumatic Tires — Passenger Cars 
(Docket No. 71-23; NoHco No. 2) 



The purpose of this notice is to amend Motor 
Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109, "New Pneu- 
matic Tires", to require safety labeling informa- 
tion to be placed on the tire between the 
maximum section width and the bead, in order 
that this information can be retained on the 
casing if the tire is retreaded. A notice of pro- 
posed nilemaking regarding this subject was 
issued on December 21, 1971 (36 F.R. 24824). 

A majority of the comments received in re- 
sponse to the notice agreed with the intent of the 
proposed amendment. However, objections were 
raised to the proposed requirement that the label- 
ing information be located between the maximum 
section width and the bead on bath sidewalls. 
The comments indicated that the use of white- 
wall designs limited the area between the section 
width and the bead, and that as a consequence, 
certain labeling information is placed between 
the maximum section width and the shoulder 
area to comply with the labeling requirements 
of Standard No. 109. Placing the information 
between maximum section width and bead on 
both sidewalls would evidently require the re- 
designing both of molds and lines of tires. 

The agency has concluded after review of the 
information submitted to the docket that all 



labeling information should be located on both 
sidewalls of the tires as presently required by 
Standard No. 109. However, in response to the 
objections to the proposed requirements, only one 
sidewall is required to have the labeling infor- 
mation between the maximum section width and 
the bead. This will still allow information to be 
retained on casings so that retreaders need not 
relabel tires in meeting the requirements of 
Standard No. 117 (49 CFR 571.117). 

In light of the above, Paragraph S4.3 of Motor 
Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109, "New Pneu- 
matic Tires", § 571.109 of Title 49, Code of Fed- 
eral Regulations, is amended .... 

Eifective Date : July 1, 1973. 

This notice is issued under the authority of 
sections 103, 112, 113, 114, 119 and 201 of the 
National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 
15 use 1392, 1401, 1402, 1403, 1407, 1421, and 
the delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.51. 

Issued on October 31, 1972. 

Charles H. Hartman 
Acting Administrator 

37 F.R. 23536 
Novombor 4, 1972 



PART 671; S 109— PRE 23-24 



EffKtWa: July I, 1973 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 109 

New Pneumatic Tires— Passenger Cars 

(Docket No. 71-23; NoHce 3) 
(Docket No. 1-8; Notice 10) 



This notice amends Motor Vehicle Safety 
Standards Nos. 109 and 117 (49 CFR 571.109) 
to reduce the minimum size of permanent safety 
labeling to 0.078 inches. Motor Vehicle Safety 
Standard No. 109, "New Pneiunatic Tires," was 
amended November 4, 1972 (37 F.R. 23536), to 
specify both a location on the tire sidewall for 
safety labeling and a labeling size of not less 
than %2 of *^ inch. Motor Vehicle Safety 
Standard No. 117, "Retreaded Pneumatic Tires", 
was amended March 23, 1972 (37 F.R. 9590), to 
specify permanent labeling of the same minimum 
size. 

The Michelin Tire C!ompany has protested 
that the %2 u^ch minimum size is inconsistent 
with the existing practice of European tire 
manufacturers of labeling tires in letters having 
a size of 0.078 inches (2mm). It has pointed 
out that as a consequence of the amendment, 
European tire manufacturers will have to in- 
crease the size of all existing labeling. The 
NHTSA has concluded that the difference be- 
tween letters 0.078 inches in size and those of 
0.093 inches is not significant, and does not jus- 
tify the resultant expense to manufacturers of 
modifying tire molds. By this notice the 
NHTSA therefore reduces the m inimum size to 
0.078 inches for labeling required by S4.3 of 
Standard No. 109. 



Because the permanent labeling provisions of 
Standard No. 117 are intended to be ultimately 
met with new tire labeling, the size requirements 
for permanent labeling in that standard are also 
modified. 

In light of the above. Motor Vehicle Safety 
Standard No. 109, 49 CFR 571.109, and Motor 
Vehicle Safety Standard No. 117, 49 CFR 
571.117, are amended as follows : 

Effective dates: July 1, 1973, for the amend- 
ment to S4.3 of 49 CFR 571.109; February 1, 
1974, for the amendment to S6.3.2 of 49 CFR 
571.117. These amendments relieve an imneces- 
sary restriction without a significant effect on 
motor vehicle safety. Consequently, it is found 
for good cause that notice and public procedure 
thereon are unnecessary, and that an effective 
date less than 180 days from the day of issuance 
is in the public interest. 

(Sees. 103, 112, 113, 114, 119, 201, Pub. L. 
89-563, 80 Stat. 718, 15 U.S.C. 1392, 1401, 1402, 
1403, 1407, 1421; delegations of authority at 49 
CFR 1.51.) 

Issued on March 8, 1973. 

James E. Wilson 
Acting Administrator 

38 F.R. 6999 
March 15, 1973 



PART 571; S 109— PRE 25-26 



Effacttv*: March 39, 1974 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 109 

New Pneumatic Tires— Passenger Cars 
(Docket No. 71-10; Notice 3) 



This notice amends the requirements for high 
speed performance and endurance applicable to 
passenger car tires in Motor Vehicle Safety 
Standard No. 109, "New Pneumatic Tires", by 
adding additional criteria to the description of 
tire failure. A notice of proposed rulemaking 
on which this amendment is based was published 
September 20, 1972 (37 F.R. 19381). That notice 
proposed to modify the criteria for tire failure 
in both Standard No. 109 and Standard No. 117, 
"Retreaded Pneumatic Tires". As the tests for 
high speed performance and endurance have 
been revoked in Standard No. 117, this amend- 
ment affects only the requirements of Standard 
No. 109. 

The proposal of September 20, 1972, was de- 
signed to expand the description of tire failure 
to include certain characteristics which had ap- 
peared in tires tested by NHTSA, and which 
were considered to be evidence of potential in- 
service tire failure, but which were not spe- 
cifically prohibited by the existing language of 
the standard. These conditions included tread- 
groove cracking, deep sidewall separations, and 
damage to areas such as the tire innerliner. 
Standard No. 109 presently prohibits tires tested 
to the high speed performance and endurance 
tests of the standard from exhibiting "tread, ply, 
cord, or bead separation, chunking, or broken 
cords". The proposal would have prohibited, as 
a result of either of the two tests, the displace- 
ment of any tire component from its design po- 
sition, including partial or complete separation 
of any component from any other component, 
but would not have prohibited exposure of chafer 
fabric and surface cracking that did not expose 
ply cord or belt cord. Any crack in a tread 
groove that exceeded three-sixteenths of an inch 



in length would, however, have also been pro- 
hibited. The proposal also contained an "air- 
loss" test, which would have required the tire to 
retain at least 95 percent of its initial inflation 
pressure when measured immediately after each 
performance test. 

Numerous comments were received in response 
to the proposal. While most were in agreement 
with its general purpose, to provide a more in- 
clusive definition of tire failure, almost all dis- 
agreed with the method proposed. The principal 
objection, raised by the Rubber Manufacturers' 
Association and major tire companies, was that 
the proposed language was too broad: that it 
included within the concept of tire failure many 
conditions that were in no way detrimental to 
tire performance. It was pointed out that many 
such conditions might exist in tires before lab- 
oratory wheel tests had been conducted and were 
considered by industry to be no more than in- 
consequential manufacturing imperfections. The 
comments argued that such conditions included 
cracking at an innerliner splice, innerliner blis- 
ters, innerliner folds, mold off-register, sidewall 
blisters, light tread, tearing or chipping of tread 
element, cord impression in the bead area, light 
bead, and bead cracks at the toe. The comments 
suggested as an alternative to the proposed lan- 
guage that the requirements be revised to spe- 
cifically include the problem conditions that 
NHTSA testing had produced, and provided 
possible definitions to describe these conditions. 

The NHTSA has determined that this sug- 
gested approach will satisfy the purpose of the 
proposal, and adopts it essentially as suggested 
by the domestic tire industry. Prohibitions 
against sidewall and innerliner separation, 
cracking, and open splices will be added to 



PART 571; S 109— PRE 27 



Efhdiv*: March 29, 1974 



the standard. New definitions, for "inner- 
liner" and "innerliner separation", "cracking", 
"open splice", and "sidewall separation" are 
added to the standard. These definitions are 
essentially as suggested by the Rubber Manu- 
facturers' Association, with the exception of 
"innerliner separation". The suggested defini- 
tion would have limited tire failures involving 
innerliner separation to those demonstrating air 
loss. The NHTSA has not adopted this air-loss 
restriction for the following reasons. First, the 
NHTSA is of the opinion that innerliner sepa- 
ration exhibited on a "hot tire", one having just 
completed either of the laboratory wheel tests, 
is evidence of potential in-service tire failure, 
irrespective of whether actual air loss has oc- 
curred at that point. Second, the air-loss test 
adopted for the standard, and discussed in 
greater detail below, measures only